Template talk:D&D topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
D&D to-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Main Series[edit]

Why is there a 'main series' list in the video games section? Just because they have the 'Dungeon's and Dragon's' name in the title despite having mostly nothing to do with one another? Seems rather odd. Most the games have D&D in the titles on the box somewhere so shouldn't they all be the 'main series'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to Creature description, not the General D&D page for the creature.[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the case for all creatures, but it is for Halfling. If Halfling (D&D) does not have the complete information, what's the point of including it? (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the link for halfling. (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gold Box[edit]

Under the video games, I'd like to see the Gold box games have their own subcategory, under which would be the Krynn, Pools of Radiance and the Savage Frontier sagas along with Unlimited Adventures.

After all, it was the game series that defined AD&D for a generation of gamers. – T.V., 05:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Controversies Placement[edit]

It comes to my attention that the first article that the template shows (i.e., ignoring the D&D article) is the Controversies one. I don't believe that should be the first article. I'm a new editor, and still don't know completely the guidelines for templates, but I think it should start with the articles that best describe D&D, and end with the public reaction and criticism, like articles do. If we go to the Dungeons & Dragons article, we see that the Controversies subsection is the last one of the Game History section, and the Sources and influences, Editions and Gen Con are all presented before Controversies. Personally, I believe Controversies doesn't even belong to the template, and if it does, it should go right in the end of General. Is there any reason I'm ignoring for this article to be the first one in the template? Happy E. Milk (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that the current ordering is just alphabetical, and it's listed first for that reason, basically by happenstance. If you think that some other ordering would be preferable, then I'd encourage you to be WP:BOLD and change the order. Personally, I don't think the order matters and am content regardless, though I would definitely disagree with removing the controversies page from the template entirely. Lowercaserho (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had completely ignored the alphabetical order. I don't believe it's appropriate for the General row. I would reorder it myself if I could, but the template is locked. Happy E. Milk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, so it is. My apologies, I hadn't noticed. In that case, your choices generally would be either to make an edit request or -- since this particular template is only semi-protected -- simply to wait until your account is autoconfirmed at which point you'll be able to edit it yourself. In this particular case, my recommendation would be to leave a comment on this talk page stating exactly what changes you want to make, including the exact order you want to change to. Then, if nobody objects, simply make the change yourself once your account is autoconfirmed. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Exandria to Cosmology Section[edit]

Add Exandria to list of cosmologies (link to page for Critical Role) as the publication of The Explorer’s Guide to Wildemount establishes it as an official, WotC-recognized campaign setting. Kennyhitt (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question: @Kennyhitt: Why not add a link directly to Critical Role (in some other place, maybe)? It seems to me that other pages in this category that are listed in the "Cosmology" section have their own page (which is not the case of Exandria, which did not even exist as a redirect, until now that is since I added it) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Campaign Setting Rankings[edit]

Hello everyone! Thanks to Oranjelo100 for recent updates of the template. However, I disagree with a number of changes about campaign settings and would like to discuss them here.

  • Al-Qadim in my opinion should be counted as a separate campaign setting. Sure, it shares the same planet than the Forgotten Realms and has many links. Sure, it has been discontinued (but that's true of the majority of settings) and what few later mentions there were are under the Forgotten Realms umbrella. But it had its own imprint in 2nd edition days and was much more extensive the many smaller ones mentioned separately.
  • Kara-Tur has a very similar situation. However, situation is more muddied, as the main box was under the Forgotten Realms logo. But it did have it's own imprint, so I rather tend to have it separately.
  • Underdark should be kept to a loction, not a sub-setting. It was never called an official campaign setting, or was it?
  • Neverwinter Why was this ever a setting? Sure, it features its own row of games, but the Wikipedia article clearly calls it only a location within the Realms, and I agree.
  • Forgotten Realms If we want to have sub-setting here, Maztica and The Horde were offically called campaing set(ting)s. And Malatra would be sub-setting of Kara-Tur, right?

What do others think? Daranios (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think placing parts of the setting worlds under the main setting name is the best way to organize as it makes it clear at a quick glance to the unfamiliar reader that they are part of a larger setting. This aids their navigation (the main purpose of a navbox) as it allows them to see the more closely related articles more quickly.
As for which to include, that's a more interesting question. The only reason I can think of that Neverwinter gets mentioned separately is because there was a Neverwinter-specific book towards the latter part of the 4e era; although it is a well-done book, there have been many city or region-specific books for parts of the Realms over the years, and Neverwinter isn't really notably different in that regard; it almost comes off as an outdated bit of WP:RECENTISM to highlight it because of one book that was new when the link was added. I think we can remove it safely.
I agree that listing the Underdark as a setting isn't quite right. Especially since many worlds have their own Underdarks; in addition to Toril and Oerth, Eberron, Nerath, Mystara, and even Krynn (albeit a smallish one) all have an Underdark. I don't think we need to repeat it so many times. I'm just not sure where to put the link, though, as it's not really a plane of existence; it's very much part of the material plane.
Speaking of planes of existence and repeated links, I think, per navbox guidelines, we should remove the repeated links from the planes section, and the ones that aren't strictly repeats but instead lead to the article on the worlds themselves should be under the campaign settings entries. We have to be mindful of those articles being largely in-universe and frankly likely to get merged as is slated for the World of Eberron article. They just lack independent notability, really. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no preference if to put the worlds under planes or campaign settings. As for the Underdark, I am looking at it from the Spelljammer point of view, where the different worlds mentioned under Material Plane are not meant to be different Material Planes but locations within the Material Plane. Then we can let the Underdark remain there as just another (type of) location.
I don't think we should list Faerûn with the campaign settings, but rather as Abeir-Toril (Faerûn) under locations within the Material Plane. Except if we decide to move the worlds to the campaign settings.
Speaking of Recentism, I still prefer Al-Qadim (and possibly Kara-Tur) separate from the Forgotten Realms, because that was the case when Al-Qadim was still published. But I guess I just worry that Al-Qadim is missing out :-). Daranios (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, listing Faerûn under the setting is logical. The other reason for sticking the worlds with the settings is keeping the in-universe organization to a minimum. Plus there's the fact that Eberron isn't in the Prime Material Plane, but its own pocket universe in the Astral Plane, but I digress. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting the worlds with the settings would be one solution. Renaming the section from "Planes of existence" to "Locations" would be an other one. But I don't see putting Faerûn under campaign settings as logical as long is this section is really meant for campaign settings, because Faerûn isn't one. The Forgotten Realms are a campaign setting, Faerûn is the major location within this setting. Just like Greyhawk is a campaign setting, but the Flaeness isn't one. Daranios (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]