Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Already on there. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-retired?

OK, this really sucks, coming just as things were really getting going with getting more GA's for the project, but that's life sometimes. I was able to get a lot of things done at Wikipedia by doing a lot of my editing while I'm at work, but I got some news on Friday that should take most of that away. A new program has been installed on our computers which will track the exact amount of time that we spend on one program or another, meaning I will no longer be able to spend an hour (or more) each day of non-break time screwing around on non-work related things such as Wikpedia. ;) Taking away my ability to choose wrongdoing should force me to focus on work, as I should have been doing in the first place. :) Ah, America, the newest Communist state, with our police camera boxes on more and more corners all the time, and Big Brother tightening his grip - but, I digress. ;)

So, what does this mean for me? Well, no more half-hour Wikipedia editing sprees, no more staying late for an hour to spend time on the internet, or even doing major work on articles in MS Word (because that's being tracked too). I can't do as much as I currently do just from wokring at home, so I will have to cut back. This especially effects my work on GA's, so I probably won't be able to do the amount of work that I did to get articles like Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Forgotten Realms, or Spider-Man promoted. I can still help to coordinate efforts on the GA front, do copyediting and other minor stuff to help, and other things. I just won't have huge gobs of available time to do big batches of work or checking on things like I have been. I'll likely have to cut back on the watchlists I keep track of. I may have to cut back even more than I'm expecting, or I could be overreacting on just how much I'll have to cut down. I'll still have the same amount of free time (presumably) at home, and I'm still free to do as I please in the 10 minutes or so when I first get to work, and my two 15-minute breaks (and sometimes lunch), and a much shorter time after work. It may lead me to eventually give up on Wikepdia entirely, or I may just need to be more productive with the time I do use. We'll see; I'm not going anywhere any time soon, but I guess my point is just that I wanted to say my time will unfortunately be much more limited. BOZ (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sucks. You've done a great job with all those GAs, the D&D monster lists, and helping to really keep this project organized. I'll try to keep things moving around here with our GA efforts. Hope to see you around, even if it's not as often (weekends, maybe?). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should be around just about daily, but what I can actually accomplish should be significantly less - unless I figured out how to narrow my focus without losing anything important. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... gotcha. Well, at least that's good. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. One hour from you towards a GA is more than all other D&D editors combined, minus a select few, anyways. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The two of you, for certain, at least. :) I'll still put in time where I can (just did some work on Planescape: Torment, and if luck holds out, Fantastic Four finally), and you've absolutely not seen the last of me. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Cleanup listing has finally been updated! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool - only took four months. ;) Which is about how long it took the last time; so we're down to three updates per year now, June, October, and February. :) Used to be roughly monthly... BOZ (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, maybe they're getting back on track? What I don't quite understand is how WP:CHECKWIKI gets updated daily from some sort of database dump, but other things like this need to take so long. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward RFA

FYI, Thumperward/Chris Cunningham is up for RFA. BOZ (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for pointing that out. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Monster GA?

I had been kind of despairing of ever getting a monster article to GA, but the Dummies series has some good info on a few of them.[1][2] If we could find a bit more, we might be able to do one. Or, just get a few of them up to a B class that actually has notability established would be good to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I could see giving Illithid, Beholder or Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) up to GA-Class, although it would be no easy task. Others, such as Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons), are probably doable but would need a complete rewrite. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about all of those myself, but yes it will be no easy task. When I once again have access to all of my D&D books (hopefully soon, fingers crossed), that's one thing I want to work on badly. I just found a stash of old Dragon mags since I don't have access to the CD-ROM, which is encouraging. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just pulled out all my 1st and 2nd ed rulebooks, (I missed 3e completely). I was musing on whether merging Asmodeus and Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) for a good GA - I mean, it's teh same lord of the Nine Hells isn't it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that that would be a good idea, but would the WP:OCCULT and WP:JUDAISM people approve? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we would want an independant source to back up his inclusion (which I don't think exists). It's kind of an "In other media" thing, which needs inclusion criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamat has at least passing mentions in independant soures due to the cartoon. I've looked and not found a substantial source, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My experience has generally been that mythology people want as little pop culture stuff (if they're willing to tolerate any at all) in the parent articles. This would be the main reason why there are so many "X (D&D)" articles for monsters and gods in the first place. :) For example, I created the Pazuzu (Dungeons & Dragons), Baphomet (Dungeons & Dragons) and others (through AFC, before I registered an account) like Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons), because people were tolerating very little in the parent article, but we had articles like Yeenoghu and Kostchtchie long before I got here, because it wouldn't make sense to have them under a parent article because they're more or less unique EGG creations. Make sense? :) BOZ (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe me I know...I try to get comprehensive articles with cultural sections which can be expanded elsewhere if needed - two best are off-topic lion and vampire. Trying to do same with ghost. Good referencing is critical to being able to defend cultural additions. (but it is an uphill battle...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lorraine Williams

new section added to her page about a recent claim that she created TSR the company that made Dungeons and Dragons. someone else should look over the small section, and check the website itself, and make the section better than it is to provide correct information and explain how the claim that she created the company as on her website is false so as to not confuse readers that may arrive at her article here and somehow think her website speaks the truth. only the exact quote form her website appears in the new section with the link to the page so that someone can give better info regarding this fictitious claim on her website. shadzar-talk 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. We'll need a better source than that for such controversial info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Original Research on their website. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The website is the source that the Dille Family Trust is trying to claim that LW did in fact create TSR the makers of D&D. Therefore why i placed it on her page so someone better at writing could do something to prevent people from believing it that may see that page first, then visit WP. we know, but for encyclopedic information it should be noted somehow that the official dille family trust website, is not telling the truth with its claims since it is used as a source for other things in her article. shadzar-talk 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone actually believe that crap, though? :) BOZ (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about removing the info without being clear. I thought you had brought it up because you thought it should be removed. My thinking is that the website isn't important enough to document it statements (lies). If we found a newspaper or something that actually believed it, that would be another story. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, no i don't believe she creating anything other than...well i won't put my opinion into this. I know who created TSR, was just bringing the potential problem caused by the website to the attention of everyone in light of GA articles being made, and to prevent some erronious info be put on the article without forewarning of where it originated. At least people now know about the statement form that website, and can be ready for it in case it is brought up somewhere, or someone asks. maybe placing it on the article talk page would have been better, but my mind hasn't really been on WP lately, and i did not think about that when i added the info, and told people here a bout it. Boz, sadly, those that don't know the history of TSR, may very well believe it, since it is being trumpted as true on that website. :( shadzar-talk 08:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

True that; but how many people are actually looking into that website compared to more reliable ones? BOZ (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FA drive?

Rather than working on more GAs, would it be worthwhile to try for another FA? I think that Ravenloft (module) or Planescape: Torment have promise with a fair bit of work. (the former being primarily copyediting-related) –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You really want to take more punishment?  ;) Do you think all of the concerns from the previous two Ravenloft FAs have been resolved, or will those come back up again? BOZ (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs another thorough copyediting or five, but otherwise I think that all of the concerns have been fixed... refs are good, images are good, overall structure and content is good, comprehensiveness is good... it's just prose that needs some work. I hope to start taking a look at it once a week for a month or two to copyedit it, although all help would be appreciated. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's me again! For Torment, why don't we host a peer review? That could get some more eyes on it. We could also request A-class, and get some more comments that way. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Absoltely agree - that way, you'll get half the stuff that FA reviewers complain about out of the way. :) BOZ (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good... but where would we request the A-Class review? –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, but peer review is easy enough. :) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've opened a general peer review and a WP:VG peer review for it. We can nominate it for A-class by WP:VG after we get some comments. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left a few comments at Talk:Planescape: Torment. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My busy-ness has gone to critical mass. ;) I hope to have everything resolved and back to normal within the next few days... BOZ (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We miss you. Have you been limited to a certain number of discretional minutes of web surfing per day? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What Peregrine said. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That, and incredibly busy at home. In fact, my discretionary minutes here are about up. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Man. Well, hope things settle down a little... its feeling lonely! :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's getting back to normal already. Not quite there yet, but well on the way. :) Thanks for the concern fellas, but everything's cool on my end and you can't get rid of me yet. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags

Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banners for this project and its task forces have have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why won't you be watching this page? ;) So what will this do for us? Do you think we might still be missing some pages? I've tried to be as ridiculously thorough as possible, but I am only human. :) BOZ (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a standardized notice Drilnoth has been placing on a ton of wikiproject pages that he's not involved with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By a "ton", you mean "five", right? :) And yes, it was just a subst'd notice... I just wanted to let you know about it. We occasionally find a few more, so it could be useful. And I did say that I "probably" wouldn't be watching this page! :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how this goes

Linky –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, awesome! Watchlisted. :) BOZ (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Daemonfey

There's an AFD. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. BOZ (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragonlance

It's now being reviewed! BOZ (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Success! :) BOZ (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! We're on a roll! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! :) Do you like anything I suggested above? BOZ (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh... I won't say no to more modules. It would be nice to work on some more articles about fictional elements, but just let me know what I can help with and I'll do my best. (Right after I work on the NWN2 plot summary, which I really, truly, honestly plan to do in these next few days). –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, get to it. ;) It's at least on it's way to B-Class, and you've pushed it well past C-Class by now. :) BOZ (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mergers

Okay, so the way I see it if we don't seriously start merging articles they're just going to slowly get nominated for deletion and/or deteriorate in quality and usefulness as time passes. Therefore, I think it might be a good idea to focus on merging all of our less- (and non-)notable articles before we try for more GAs. It really doesn't take long to merge an article, so it might be worthwhile to keep this from continuing to happen. Thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. He Who Must Not Be Named will be back for round 3 pretty soon anyway. I am loathe to do it, of course, but what must be done must be done. I'd say, rather than looking at what does and does not have a notability template (since they were more or less placed arbitrarily anyway), we should identify them one by one based on potential. Fictional elements, as a whole, should be on the bottom of the list, especially those which are unsourced or barely sourced. Novels, game books, video games, designers, and other tangible elements in no particular order should be given more deferrence, unless they too are unsourced and not likely to be improved. BOZ (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of how I feel... get the fictional elements merged, then worry about what to do with books, people, games, etc. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I intended to say but forgot, I don't think this should interfere with our GA drive; after all, both are ways of improving the encyclopedia. One is organizational, while the other is content-driven. Besides, if we're only hitting a few mergers per day that's not a huge time investment. Now that things are getting back to normal for me, I want to get back to work on looking for GA candidates. One thing I have meant to do for a while now was to get Against the Giants nominated (plan to do it before I go to bed), and then look for new likely candidates. BOZ (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal of List of Neverwinter Nights characters

See here. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New article

I recently created Darkness over Daggerford. Could someone from this project go take a look at it and make sure the D&D references/wikilinks are clear? Locations, gameplay, etc. Any copyediting would also be greatly appreciated. Also, if you're not a video gamer, please let me know if the article is accessible to non-gamers. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, good work! BOZ (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome work! Thanks for all your help! –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, nice job on the DYK. :) BOZ (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you think we should put a section for DYKs in our "featured content" area? –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure! There have been a small few. Maybe on the Portal as well? The article's talk page will usually tell if there has been a DYK, and maybe we can get a bot to tell us which ones have been. BOZ (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I added that one to the project page. I'm not sure where on the portal such a thing could go, though. Any ideas? –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's!

Excellent work on the front page.  ;) BOZ (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't always looked like this, has it? :) (Disregard that link if you happen to be reading this on April 2 or later...) BOZ (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

SD&D&D. Got it. LOL. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

Thanks; I had to do something. I even got a screenshot so that it can be saved. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, just making sure, did you read the rest of the intro? The image was an afterthought... –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't. Pretty funny. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, don't patronize the fellow. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Greyhawk

Discussion has resumed on the talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Giant Sea Worm

Geez, this thing is like a real-life D&D monster! [3] BOZ (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Hits

It's just been updated (see this). Its nice to see some more green near the top of that list... especially with today's economy. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I had just commented on that on the page's talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

lawsuit and PDF sales cease.

a section has been added to the wizards of the coast article about the recent lawsuit and cease of PDF sales in regards to piracy. anyone editing pages that may have included mention of the digital initiative for D&D that included release of PDF versions for 4th edition, may wish to correct the tense of the articles to state that the PDF versions are no longer available and all sales have ben stopped. the press release regarding the lawsuit can be found in the ref on the WotC article page. shadzar-talk 11:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh... wow. And I thought that Wizards just decided to cut off Paizo's supply of PDFs for no real reason. The press release doesn't seem to say that Wizards plans to stop releasing official PDFs of their books... am I missing something? Regardless, I'll add it to the Portal. –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Shadzar. Can't say as I'm surprised though - putting brand new books out in PDF is like a gimme for pirates, and therefore a killer for sales. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not just to spite Paizo and PAthfinder, but is listed on many of OSB subsidiary websites like this from RPGNOW.com

Wizards of the Coast has instructed us to suspend all sales and downloads of Wizards of the Coast titles. Unfortunately, this includes offering download access to previously purchased Wizards of the Coast titles. We are in discussions with Wizards about their decision to change their approach to digital sales of their titles and will post more information as we have it. If you would like to let Wizards know your opinion on offering D&D titles for download, we suggest the D&D Message Boards found here.

From RPGNOW main page. So it includes not only 4th edition, but all D&D edition products. Likewise is on DriveThruRPG.com website. shadzar-talk 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dave Arneson problem

OK, I’ve seen it posted in a number of places, so it is indeed likely that Dave Arneson has passed away, or is about to. There are a few things we should keep in mind:

1. Naturally, we can’t let people post new "facts" from unreliable sources, or with no sources at all. This is still a BLP until we get rock-solid confirmation.
2. Obituaries are being written right now, assuming he is dead. When Gygax died, people were using his WP article as a source – sometimes liberally (paraphrasing the entry as it was), or sometimes just lifting tidbits. We need, immediately, to source all information in his article, and then remove all unsourced information (or remove it now, and restore what we can source). We do not want newspapers assuming that just anything someone posted here is an accurate fact, and then have them reporting it as a fact.
3. We have talked before about making his article a GA; that would be a fitting tribute I think, much as it was for Gygax. Obituaries are often enough reliable sources, so (not to sound morbid, but) we are likely to get a bunch of new sources this week. Naturally, this means we need to take my above point very seriously, or we'll wind up doing some weird sort of circular self-referencing.

BOZ (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm going to request semi-protection of the page so that messageboard posts and the like stop being used as refs. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is, that if this were a week from now, you could semi-protect it yourself rather than having to request it. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't lost on me. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated. ;) Still, in poor health in hospice care, it may only be a matter of time. Thus, what I said above still applies. Harami did an excellent cleanup job on the article, so I may not want to remove anything. BOZ (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope he gets better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness; let us hope that this passes soon so that he may continue his normal life. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

it may be needed that until this is all sorted out that his page be protected to prevent vandalism, or falsehoods during this time. maybe a weeks protection, and all parties involved int he RPG projects, just not mention a thing about it further than may have already been until after full details are disclosed of his passing, or most hopefully his recovery. shadzar-talk 08:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's semi-protected; with the IPs and new users blocked out, we should be able to handle the rest. :) BOZ (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

=P I never could keep those darn lock pictures straight, but i guess that's that then. ;) shadzar-talk 12:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We really need a new Biographies of Possibly-Still-Living Persons policy for this kind of thing. It takes the mickey how often prominent obituaries use WP as a base these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. I discovered this problem when I was working up Gary Gygax to a GA. It was a UK paper (Guardian or Times, don't remember which) that basically paraphrased his Wiki entry as it was at the time, and plenty of other papers had done smaller scale versions of the same. Speaking of GAs, I am totally serious about getting Arneson's up to GA - but not yet, maybe we'll let it settle and give it a go in about a week. Recently deceased people's articles always get a ton of attention for a few days. BOZ (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)