Template talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old peer review[edit]

I tried using the "old-peer-review: Answer yes" as suggested on template usage page in Talk:Dungeons and Dragons and it did not work properly. This talk page currently uses a seperate Template:oldpeerreview - Waza 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I made this template by copying Template:Film. I can't figure out how their old peer review field works, so I'm having trouble fixing this one. - Peregrine Fisher 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


after seeing one somewhere else i figured it shouldn't be hard to upgrade this one like RPGProject was updated. i will be going through all the places i can find to update this template on talk pages. if for some reason the older version is required and the new version i jsut made does not work i apologize and will revert ALL the edits myself to all pages that include this new version of the template, unless someone else does. if this causes problems for anyone then i apologize whole-heartedly, but i think in the end the BannerMeta version will make it all much easier. shadzar-talk 13:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the MetaBanner conversion was reverted a short while ago. Was there a particular reason for this? I could reimplement it and retain all the functions/features of the current banner (plus a few more if desired). Cheers, Martin 21:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to converting it back again? Martin 12:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I think the only different is that the XX-Class articles of YY-importance categories are not being populated now. I can do this if it is deemed important but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile, and I understand that it will be unnecessary once the next generation WP1.0 bot is released. Thoughts? Martin 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The class-by-importance categories are useful for a variaty of reasons, including finding articles of a particular importance that need to be improved and assessing articles that don't have an importance rating yet. If you can modify the current template, using WPBannerMeta, to use that, I fully support it; otherwise, there should probably be some discussion at WT:DND for further input; I hadn't even noticed this conversation until I saw the revert on the public D&D watchlist. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, does the WPBannerMeta support the Bottom-importance, the additional classes used by the project, the various work groups, and the cleanup and focus flags? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Bottom-importance: no (but we could interpret all such instances as Low-importance)
  • additional classes: yes (although the only additional one is Merge I think at the moment),
  • Work groups: yes
  • All flags: yes

I will implement the XX-Class articles of YY-importance categories. Just give me a day or two. Martin 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. However, I think that having Bottom-importance is important and has consensus at WT:DND, because we're currently restructuring the project's importance rating (for precedence, see WP:COMICS). That was also one of the main reasons that I redid the template, in addition to having the other things (which I thought of as I was working on it). -Drilnoth (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One reason I forgot to mention about the XX-by-YY cats; they're being used by User:Erwin85Bot to count the numbers for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Assessment statistics. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know what's going on here, but could we must make all bottoms lows? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what is currently being done using WPBannerMeta. The thing is, the four-level importance scheme doesn't quite work for the project (because a lot of the more in-universe articles should be lower than the authors which are low-importance). I guess that it doesn't really matter, but User:BOZ agreed that it was a good idea because it allows us to better prioritize. Since the system's already in place (as long as WPBannerMeta isn't use), I don't know why we should remove it. I've also put in a request at Template talk:WPBannerMeta to see if something could be done there to allow for a Bottom-importance. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, it seems that this has now been fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally members of WikiProjects tend to overrate the importance of their articles. It seems we have the opposite problem here :P Martin 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to put only actual articles into Category:All Dungeons & Dragons articles and all non-article pages (including redirects and dabs) into Category:Non-article Dungeons & Dragons pages? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What about "unassessed"? Martin 11:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Unassessed should probably be put with the articles... there usually aren't that many, and they tend to be articles. If there are a few that aren't, they'll be appropriately assessed eventually. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I wasn't sure what to do with Merge-Class, but I'm sure you can work out how to change that. Martin 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Could you check the code? Thanks for all your help here! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Any word on the X-by-Y cats? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
At the bottom of this page it says "Template-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles of NA-importance", so it seems to be working! Martin 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you so much for your help! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now, but if there's anything I can do just let me know. And if you ever decide to ditch Bottom-importance I can simplify the template so much ... Martin 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Is that really the best image of a die that this project can come up with?? C'mon people! (I'm just kidding, i can't do any better ;P ) -- œ 08:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fiction parameter[edit]

The fiction parameter adds talkpages to Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. That category, which is part of a category tree Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, should not be added to talkpages. BTW, this template was originally based on Template:WikiProject Film, which also does not have this parameter. I'll remove it from the template, and take care to check if the articles of talkpages such tagged, are themselves tagged with the appropriate tag: {{In-universe|subject = ''Dungeons & Dragons''|category = Dungeons & Dragons|date = June 2018}}. Debresser (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Non-article Dungeons & Dragons pages[edit]

What is the function of this category, which is automatically populated by this template? Is it for pages that do not require a quality assessment? If so, then it would duplicate Category:NA-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles. Is it a catch-all category for all non-article D&D pages? If so, then it duplicates more defined categories within Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles by quality, such as for 'Category-Class', 'Portal-Class' and so on.

In its current state, the category contains some pages of most quality classes – article and non-article. For instance, it contains non-article pages such as categories and files, but contains only 58% (150 of 257) Category-Class articles and 43% (349 of 804) of File-Class articles. At the same time, and in spite of the title, it contains 55% (739 or 1337) of Stub-Class articles and 65% (567 or 879) of Start-Class articles.

My question was raised once before in 2007 on the category's talk page, but the discussion there offers no clear purpose or scope for this category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that no one understands the purpose for this category, or why it was created. Also note that I believe Category:All Dungeons & Dragons articles is perhaps an equally misleading title, as it does not contain all D&D articles. (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh, so we have two related categories, neither one doing what it is supposed to do. Well, since the subcategories of Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles by quality already separate article and non-article D&D pages, would it at least be useful to have a single category containing all D&D pages (to be more precise, all pages tagged with {{WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons}})? -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I would think so. I don't know if it would help to have things like redirects, images, etc go into the "non-article pages" category, and just the articles in the "all D&D articles" category, or if it would be easier to just have a single catch-all like you suggest. I don't think anyone will object, either way. (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Category:All Dungeons & Dragons articles now contains all pages tagged with this template, and the 'Non-article' category now stands empty. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)