![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just wanted to make a few comments on the principles I have been using to create notes and references in this article as this topic has not really been discussed recently and was raised in peer review feedback.
The sources both in the references and footnotes use
Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. As these templates are based on the
Harvard Referencing style, extrapolations of unusual cases have been based on trying to follow the style of these. General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes. The footnotes are all one of three types:
Some of the more unusual types of sources to be dealt with include:
The notes currently mostly conform to these standards described above, and I am currently working through changing those that don't. Please help in article and/or agree/disagree/discus with above below. - Waza 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been hunting high and low for references to support the information from the article as follows:
Dungeons & Dragons and the games it influenced also fed back into the genre's origin—miniatures wargames—with combat strategy games like Battletech, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000. Collectible card games, like Magic: The Gathering, were also heavily influenced by Dungeons & Dragons and its legacy.
I have been unable to find anything. the closest is this web page http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm which says that the creators of Magic were fantasy role-playing enthusiasts. Lacking any sources I can see the only way forward is to delete these scentences. However as they seem to be statements that may be true I thought I would ask here first if anyone else can point to any references. Of the four pages linked only MtG wikipedia article even mentions D&D and that is a single unsourced statement:
Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, Magic bears little resemblance to pencil-and-paper adventure games.
Any objections to deleting please note here, or any sources to allow keeping of this pleas add in article. - Waza 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
All this has been removed except influence on Warhammer Fantasy Battle which is now references with http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html warhammer - Waza 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking for a while that this article needs some images of some actual games in progress. The fair use images of the books are good for displaying them but they don't show anything about how the game actually works. I have added in an image I got permission to use from Phillip on the Dwarven Forge forums [1] but it would be good to show a variety of game styles. Here is how I see three "in game" pictures scattered through the article:
Any actual pictures or suggestions/comments please. - Waza 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently nominated as a Featured Article. Please come and support the nomination. Check this article is up to scratch against the FAC criteria (listed above), look at the other critism, and either help address the concerns of those that oppose it and/or support the article if you believe those concerns are not legitimate.
To help I have summaries concerns raised at the nomination, at the moment there are two oppose, no support and several comments. Please note this is a summary of concerns raised on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Dungeons & Dragons and not my views (In fact while I see the merit in the first major and first minor critism, I have argued strongly against the others)
Summaries of concerns/opposition to Featured Article status. Minor concerns have been raised by one person, Major ones have been supported by others. - Waza 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering if the readers of this talk page think that these issues have been addressed? To me it appears that it has, but I'm not familiar with the state of the article prior to this FAC run. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the oppositions for the current FAC nomination is needs more non primary, preferably printed not online sources. I have started going through anything I can to find this information, particularly magazines that may have reviews of core games and key supplements or discuss D&D as a "Business comodity". I am finding little so far, but am starting this section to note what I have found. The first ones I am adding do not appear to be too useful, but if nothing better is found it is best to have a note of them as they may be better than nothing. Please add here anything that may be useful if you don't have time or ability to integrate it into the article. - Waza 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) - Is an online, not paper source, but appears to be highly respected and article is by author notable in non-gaming.{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) - While a review of T&T not D&D it contains much critical appraisal of D&D expecially in contrast to T&T{{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)I picked up a few old issues of White Dwarf that may be useful for additional citations. On the down side, the publisher, Games Workshop, was TSR's distributor at the time, so there is a conflict of interest. (I enjoy the irony that Games Workshop was once proud to be party of the greater gaming industry.) It's still a third party and may be useful. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know when or if I'll get around to adding these to the article; I would welcome other editors to do so. If you incorporate all of a given citation into the, please mark so here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
There is no mention of the different gods/goddesses worshipped within the D&D framework. A small note on the different deities would improve the article, I think. -- WoodElf 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would expect Wikipedia at least to have the official information on this.
As far as I am aware that would amount to "Nothing is known about a 4th edition as of yet".
85.227.226.168 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several occurances of the word 'dominate' throughout the article that seem to be a phrasing more appropriate to a WotC marketing blurb than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.231.113 ( talk • contribs) 07:35, June 3, 2007.
Should the game mechanics section cover saving throws? — RJH ( talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Flubeca (t) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This search contains numerous magazine articles about D&D. I hope the authors of this article can make use of them. Particularly, I think there may be good information here about the sales and business side of the game. — Amcaja ( talk) 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — -- Hdt83 Chat 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if this citation is correct?
Should it say "Sorcerer's Scroll"? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Some concern has been expressed during the FAC concerning the use of a pair of images on this page under the Fair Use criteria. For the moment I replaced the PHB image with a Commons image of a game session in progress and commented out the module image. — RJH ( talk) 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This was just added, but lacks a reference:
I temporarily removed it from the body as the page is in the middle of an FAC. It probably is correct, but fails to meet 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. (I looked but I could not find a sufficiently solid source.) — RJH ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd hit this with {{ Fact}} but seeing as we're trying to get to FA status I shifted it to here. BreathingMeat 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Over at the featured article candidate discussion, Axl suggested including some references to early reviews as details of critical response. That sounds like a really good idea to me. Unfortunately the easiest magazine to get archives from ( Dragon) isn't appropriate, as TSR published it, making it a huge conflict on interest. So, if anyone has old gaming magazines from the 70s or early 80s, relevant snippits and citations would be helpful. I'm thinking something like "Example Games described the first edition of AD&D as 'complex and rewarding'." Possible sources that leap to mind are Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer and White Dwarf. We can probably benefit from details from reviews from all editions, but the early ones seem most important. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a place to collect citations; a scratch space: 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Upon further thought, use the already provided location above instead of fragmenting them. I've moved my own entres up there from here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The article failed to be promoted. Here's a synopsis of the objections that were not addressed:
Of these, the citation issue seemed to be the most serious objection. The remainder are, to me, minor editing issues. There was also a comment about needing more critical acclaim and wanting to see more quotes from gaming magazines from White Dwarf and Roleplayer (magazine). There was also an objection raised about some of the images, but I think that has been addressed. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear why the following is notable:
The only publication associated with OSRIC is a free set of rules. The only indication is a "coming soon" announcement. Yet it is listed as a "key example" in this article. It should probably be removed unless the notability can be established. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article's statement about D&D being the inspiration for Tunnels and Trolls, RuneQuest, Chivalry and Sorcery and Empire of the Petal Throne is corroborated by a pair of online articles from a single, anonymous author:
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)On the other hand, if I look at Ken St. Andre's SFWA web page, he says nothing about being inspired by D&D. What's more, he even says his (T&T) was the first to bear a copyright notice. Does anybody happen to know of a more academically-solid reference for these factoids? Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching around, trying to find some positive, notable acclaim for the game (that also has solid, independent references), but I couldn't seem to find much:
“ | ...provides an especially safe way for young people to meet their needs for excitement and adventure... it's just far enough removed from reality that the violence of the game doesn't promote real-life violence, but rather provides a way of draining off aggression and hostile impulses. [1] | ” |
It seems like there should be a lot more. Does anybody have some suggestions or useful links? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, this time it's not random and wild speculation. this is widely being taken as the announcement of the 4th edition. Obviously, I do not expect Wikipedia to insert this now, but when the announcement is made (likely, it will first be made at Gencon Indy tomorrow) formally on the website, it'll be smart to be on top of that. Dooms Day349 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
WHile at Gen Con yesterday, Goodman Games confirmed that WotC was doing 4th Edition, and that it would be OGL.-- Bedford 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
In this edit RJHall pulled some details from this Slashdot article because "rm slashdot entry; the author is anonymous and evidence is anecdotal. Unsuitable for FA material." I'm not so sure about this. The author is not anonymous. Quoth Next Generation: "Michael "Zonk" Zenke/Editor, Slashdot Games/Michael Zenke is the editor of Slashdot Games. Under the pseudonym 'Zonk'...". Zenke has credentials beyond Slashdot, including at The Escapist ( [2] (you'll need to click "Advanced Search" then select his name from the Author list; it's not linkable.) and " Massive Update" for 1up. I believe a post by Zonk on Slashdot qualifies as a reliable source. As for it being anecdotal, I believe it's reasonable for Wikipedia to report that a reliable source reports on anecdotal evidence. Ultimately much of journalism is simply anecdotes of things observed by the journalist. That there is at least some initial hostility to 4e is noteworthy. I'm not deeply attached to the sentence in question, but I think it did add something to the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The following addition by an anonymous editor appears PoV and is uncited:
This page is in the middle of a FAC so I don't want to slap a {{ Fact}} on the sentence and have the page fail. So I took the extreme liberty of reverting the text, pending a suitable reference. — RJH ( talk) 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
User:67.9.42.103 brought up the disagreement about D&D's history between Gygax and Arneson. It's way back up in User:Waza's "Featured Article Criteria Checklist & Comment Space" section dating back to the beginning of the year, and likely to be overlooked. So I'm copying it down here so it can be more easily found and discussed. I've also taken the liberty of intending them instead of making them a list, more in keeping with usual Talk comments.
I'm sorry I was tied up and didn't review at FAC before this was promoted; there are numerous WP:MOS and WP:WIAFA breaches that should be addressed, hopefully before this article is proposed for the main page. There is incorrect bolding throughout (unless that has been corrected since I first left the message); please see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD for descriptions of how and where to use bolding. There are also WP:DASH breaches throughout (no spaced emdashes on wiki). Citations are not all formatted; see criterion 2d of WP:WIAFA regarding consistent formatting of footnotes and examples at WP:CITE/ES. Publishers need to be identified on all sources so that reliability can be verified, last accessdate is given on websources, and author and publication date are listed when there is one. On a purely practical note, empty parameters in the cite templates chunk up the article size unnecessarily and make the article hard to edit it; I hope regular editors here don't insist on policy reasons for making common sense edits. Here are examples of poorly formatted or incomplete citations (samples only):
I'll check back periodically to see if these items have been addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In this edit SandyGeorgia noted in the edit summary, "more cleanup, missing publishers, almost no IBSNs on books". While ISBNs are a nice addition, as "[[WP:CITE/ES#Books|The ISBN ... is optional," it doesn't seem worth specifically calling out as a fix. And listing publishers can help identify sources as reliable and generally improve the article, I don't see any guidelines making it something we need to do. So long as enough information is present to identify and investigate the source, that should be plenty. In the case of web sites, it's easy enough for another editor to check it out. These both seem like good improvements (and many thanks for adding them!), but not necessarily things we absolutely need, say, to be feature article material. (I have no thoughts on the dashes, and agree that the less formatted citations really could do with a good polishing up.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think SandyGeorgia's concerns have been addressed now. Congratulations to all the authors who contributed to this FA article! Likely the page will still need periodic weeding to correct for entropy, and front page exposure tends to produce a blizzard of edits (not all of them useful). Good luck. — RJH ( talk) 18:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good; good luck on the main page! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The following addition:
is unsourced and (to me) presents a particular point-of-view. I moved it here pending references to corroborate the opinions presented. It also presents more detail than is provided by the "Related products" section, so it is not a summary (and hence belongs in the body). No offense was intended toward the editor by this act; it just needs to be done in order to maintain the page's FA status. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article (obviously, or it wouldn't be featured), but I was surprised there was no mention of the game as a social activity -- something friends get together to do on a weeknight or weekend, ordering or cooking food (especially pizza and soda pop) -- along with how groups often rotate the DM either within a campaign or among several different campaigns or even other RPGs. I realize a lot of this is not unique to D&D but D&D remains the reference point for gaming culture. Powers T 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My understanding was that the whole reason that AD&D was called that was because of some contractual agreement between Gygax and Arneson, where TSR could avoid paying Arneson some royalty if the game wasn't literally called D&D. AD&D wasn't literally named D&D, so Arneson got no royalties from it. Then Arneson and Gygax didn't speak for 20 years, or something. If someone could verify this, or the grain of truth from whence this story came, it ought to be present in the History section. Tempshill 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I read this article over a year ago, and it was... ahem... not ready for prime time. You have really done a spectacular job. -- Ssilvers 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, great job as well, this is one of the topics that can easily get out of hands, and I am sure one look at the history would confirm it has, but you managed to make the front page. [DnD Geek]You just rolled a natural 20 on the Craft Article check[/DnD Geek] Youkai no unmei 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to lock this article for today since it seems to be undergoing persistent vandalism. Dp76764 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes! Maybe just blocking the IP's that are vandalizing then? Dp76764 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the recently added "Online communities" section. Here is what it looked like at the time of deletion. It didn't really say anything interesting. That a hobby community would form online communities isn't noteworthy. The link to dndonlinegames failed to cite anything at all. The link to Gleemax failed to support the idea that WotC was attempting to capitalize (indeed, D&D Insider is the attempt to capitalize). Perhaps we should include a brief note about online gaming, but I'm not sure it needs a full section, and we'll need some better citations. Given that the article recently received Featured Article status, and my desire to enjoy the FA glow for at least a few weeks, I'm erring on the side of caution and deleting it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Part of the discussion during the FAC process resulted in the addition of the word "tabletop" to the first sentence in the article. I've been trying to maintain good faith by restoring the word whenever it is deleted, but at least one editor finds it objectionable. So, I'd like to ask the article audience which is better:
I understand that the later is not literally true, but the word "tabletop" was added to indicate that is by far the most common mode by which this game is played. Comments appreciated, thank you. — RJH ( talk) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
before chaning i think it should be discussed. Hackmaster was created from a real licensing of the AD&D material. it was not a product under the OGL, and WAS AD&D material not D&D as the section last changed before this posting suggests. i propose that it state it is a satyrical look at AD&D rather than elluding to it being any of the D&D version without the Advanced nomeclature added. and that it be understood that it was a license and K&C held the copyright to the matreial for time of about 7 years until recently WotC did not renew it. whatever sources to prove it was a real license i will leave to people better at finding sources, but the game itself is the source that it is a satire of AD&D not D&D as was present in the KoDT comic. again i would jsut change this, but wanted to prevent some edit war now that we had seen the rise to FA status with this article. shadzar| Talk| contribs 09:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like upload Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg on Commons (it has a free license), but I think that it will be deleted there, because it needs fair use, it's a derivative work from copyrighted works (see this section of Commons:Derivative works). I think that the shoot it's too much close to the miniatures.-- Trixt 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
In the "Edition History" section, there's a bit of confusion about the Basic Sets. The first one was by Holmes, as mentioned, and the second was by Moldvay. However, the "Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals" progression didn't exist until the third revision of the Basic Set, by Frank Mentzer. The Moldvay version consisted only of the Basic and Expert sets. (Thus, Moldvay-era D&D is referred to as "B/X", while Mentzer-era is "BECMI".) The different versions are distinct enough that they (all three) have their proponents and regular players, even now, with "Rules Cyclopedia D&D ("RC") being still a fourth permutation. (In addition, the "Immortals Set" wasn't so much reprinted in '91, as it was revamped into "Wrath of the Immortals", a supplement for the Rules Cyclopedia.) The text only needs a few small changes, but this is an important distinction to make. (For confirmation of this, check www.acaeum.com.) -- DestroyYouAlot 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RJHall: You can consider it authoritative or not, but the information presented is still factual, and commonly known among collectors and players of these editions. If the Acaeum doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for references, I can find another reference. The article is a summary, granted, but if it's going to contain information about two of the authors of the major revisions of the Basic Set, it should contain the third - or none of their names, and simply link to the edition article. As it stands, it's a rather glaring omission. (The "Editions of D&D" article isn't missing this information, so no need to edit that.)-- DestroyYouAlot 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The header section now includes three different redirects when only one is actually needed. (The other two should be covered adequately by the second.) I'd like to propose replacing the three redirects with this one:
Are there any objections? — RJH ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why the external link for the Wikia Wiki is so high up at the top when it is a horrible wiki. The D&D Wiki is totally active... recent changes was all filled up, but Wikia's had only 2 edits. It seem like it is very biased to me. TheFlow 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted both. Anyone considering readding them, be sure to specify exactly what information is on those sites that can't be included in articles here but is reference material. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I would note here point 4 of the "Links to be considered" section of the External Links guideline: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that is (should be?) on a D&D wiki, and is also the stuff which is (reasonably in many cases) being removed from Wikipedia. -- Pak21 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just wanted to make a few comments on the principles I have been using to create notes and references in this article as this topic has not really been discussed recently and was raised in peer review feedback.
The sources both in the references and footnotes use
Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. As these templates are based on the
Harvard Referencing style, extrapolations of unusual cases have been based on trying to follow the style of these. General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes. The footnotes are all one of three types:
Some of the more unusual types of sources to be dealt with include:
The notes currently mostly conform to these standards described above, and I am currently working through changing those that don't. Please help in article and/or agree/disagree/discus with above below. - Waza 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been hunting high and low for references to support the information from the article as follows:
Dungeons & Dragons and the games it influenced also fed back into the genre's origin—miniatures wargames—with combat strategy games like Battletech, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000. Collectible card games, like Magic: The Gathering, were also heavily influenced by Dungeons & Dragons and its legacy.
I have been unable to find anything. the closest is this web page http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm which says that the creators of Magic were fantasy role-playing enthusiasts. Lacking any sources I can see the only way forward is to delete these scentences. However as they seem to be statements that may be true I thought I would ask here first if anyone else can point to any references. Of the four pages linked only MtG wikipedia article even mentions D&D and that is a single unsourced statement:
Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, Magic bears little resemblance to pencil-and-paper adventure games.
Any objections to deleting please note here, or any sources to allow keeping of this pleas add in article. - Waza 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
All this has been removed except influence on Warhammer Fantasy Battle which is now references with http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html warhammer - Waza 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking for a while that this article needs some images of some actual games in progress. The fair use images of the books are good for displaying them but they don't show anything about how the game actually works. I have added in an image I got permission to use from Phillip on the Dwarven Forge forums [1] but it would be good to show a variety of game styles. Here is how I see three "in game" pictures scattered through the article:
Any actual pictures or suggestions/comments please. - Waza 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently nominated as a Featured Article. Please come and support the nomination. Check this article is up to scratch against the FAC criteria (listed above), look at the other critism, and either help address the concerns of those that oppose it and/or support the article if you believe those concerns are not legitimate.
To help I have summaries concerns raised at the nomination, at the moment there are two oppose, no support and several comments. Please note this is a summary of concerns raised on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Dungeons & Dragons and not my views (In fact while I see the merit in the first major and first minor critism, I have argued strongly against the others)
Summaries of concerns/opposition to Featured Article status. Minor concerns have been raised by one person, Major ones have been supported by others. - Waza 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering if the readers of this talk page think that these issues have been addressed? To me it appears that it has, but I'm not familiar with the state of the article prior to this FAC run. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the oppositions for the current FAC nomination is needs more non primary, preferably printed not online sources. I have started going through anything I can to find this information, particularly magazines that may have reviews of core games and key supplements or discuss D&D as a "Business comodity". I am finding little so far, but am starting this section to note what I have found. The first ones I am adding do not appear to be too useful, but if nothing better is found it is best to have a note of them as they may be better than nothing. Please add here anything that may be useful if you don't have time or ability to integrate it into the article. - Waza 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) - Is an online, not paper source, but appears to be highly respected and article is by author notable in non-gaming.{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) - While a review of T&T not D&D it contains much critical appraisal of D&D expecially in contrast to T&T{{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)I picked up a few old issues of White Dwarf that may be useful for additional citations. On the down side, the publisher, Games Workshop, was TSR's distributor at the time, so there is a conflict of interest. (I enjoy the irony that Games Workshop was once proud to be party of the greater gaming industry.) It's still a third party and may be useful. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know when or if I'll get around to adding these to the article; I would welcome other editors to do so. If you incorporate all of a given citation into the, please mark so here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
There is no mention of the different gods/goddesses worshipped within the D&D framework. A small note on the different deities would improve the article, I think. -- WoodElf 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would expect Wikipedia at least to have the official information on this.
As far as I am aware that would amount to "Nothing is known about a 4th edition as of yet".
85.227.226.168 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several occurances of the word 'dominate' throughout the article that seem to be a phrasing more appropriate to a WotC marketing blurb than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.231.113 ( talk • contribs) 07:35, June 3, 2007.
Should the game mechanics section cover saving throws? — RJH ( talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Flubeca (t) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This search contains numerous magazine articles about D&D. I hope the authors of this article can make use of them. Particularly, I think there may be good information here about the sales and business side of the game. — Amcaja ( talk) 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — -- Hdt83 Chat 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if this citation is correct?
Should it say "Sorcerer's Scroll"? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Some concern has been expressed during the FAC concerning the use of a pair of images on this page under the Fair Use criteria. For the moment I replaced the PHB image with a Commons image of a game session in progress and commented out the module image. — RJH ( talk) 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This was just added, but lacks a reference:
I temporarily removed it from the body as the page is in the middle of an FAC. It probably is correct, but fails to meet 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. (I looked but I could not find a sufficiently solid source.) — RJH ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd hit this with {{ Fact}} but seeing as we're trying to get to FA status I shifted it to here. BreathingMeat 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Over at the featured article candidate discussion, Axl suggested including some references to early reviews as details of critical response. That sounds like a really good idea to me. Unfortunately the easiest magazine to get archives from ( Dragon) isn't appropriate, as TSR published it, making it a huge conflict on interest. So, if anyone has old gaming magazines from the 70s or early 80s, relevant snippits and citations would be helpful. I'm thinking something like "Example Games described the first edition of AD&D as 'complex and rewarding'." Possible sources that leap to mind are Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer and White Dwarf. We can probably benefit from details from reviews from all editions, but the early ones seem most important. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a place to collect citations; a scratch space: 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Upon further thought, use the already provided location above instead of fragmenting them. I've moved my own entres up there from here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The article failed to be promoted. Here's a synopsis of the objections that were not addressed:
Of these, the citation issue seemed to be the most serious objection. The remainder are, to me, minor editing issues. There was also a comment about needing more critical acclaim and wanting to see more quotes from gaming magazines from White Dwarf and Roleplayer (magazine). There was also an objection raised about some of the images, but I think that has been addressed. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear why the following is notable:
The only publication associated with OSRIC is a free set of rules. The only indication is a "coming soon" announcement. Yet it is listed as a "key example" in this article. It should probably be removed unless the notability can be established. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article's statement about D&D being the inspiration for Tunnels and Trolls, RuneQuest, Chivalry and Sorcery and Empire of the Petal Throne is corroborated by a pair of online articles from a single, anonymous author:
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)On the other hand, if I look at Ken St. Andre's SFWA web page, he says nothing about being inspired by D&D. What's more, he even says his (T&T) was the first to bear a copyright notice. Does anybody happen to know of a more academically-solid reference for these factoids? Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching around, trying to find some positive, notable acclaim for the game (that also has solid, independent references), but I couldn't seem to find much:
“ | ...provides an especially safe way for young people to meet their needs for excitement and adventure... it's just far enough removed from reality that the violence of the game doesn't promote real-life violence, but rather provides a way of draining off aggression and hostile impulses. [1] | ” |
It seems like there should be a lot more. Does anybody have some suggestions or useful links? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, this time it's not random and wild speculation. this is widely being taken as the announcement of the 4th edition. Obviously, I do not expect Wikipedia to insert this now, but when the announcement is made (likely, it will first be made at Gencon Indy tomorrow) formally on the website, it'll be smart to be on top of that. Dooms Day349 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
WHile at Gen Con yesterday, Goodman Games confirmed that WotC was doing 4th Edition, and that it would be OGL.-- Bedford 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
In this edit RJHall pulled some details from this Slashdot article because "rm slashdot entry; the author is anonymous and evidence is anecdotal. Unsuitable for FA material." I'm not so sure about this. The author is not anonymous. Quoth Next Generation: "Michael "Zonk" Zenke/Editor, Slashdot Games/Michael Zenke is the editor of Slashdot Games. Under the pseudonym 'Zonk'...". Zenke has credentials beyond Slashdot, including at The Escapist ( [2] (you'll need to click "Advanced Search" then select his name from the Author list; it's not linkable.) and " Massive Update" for 1up. I believe a post by Zonk on Slashdot qualifies as a reliable source. As for it being anecdotal, I believe it's reasonable for Wikipedia to report that a reliable source reports on anecdotal evidence. Ultimately much of journalism is simply anecdotes of things observed by the journalist. That there is at least some initial hostility to 4e is noteworthy. I'm not deeply attached to the sentence in question, but I think it did add something to the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The following addition by an anonymous editor appears PoV and is uncited:
This page is in the middle of a FAC so I don't want to slap a {{ Fact}} on the sentence and have the page fail. So I took the extreme liberty of reverting the text, pending a suitable reference. — RJH ( talk) 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
User:67.9.42.103 brought up the disagreement about D&D's history between Gygax and Arneson. It's way back up in User:Waza's "Featured Article Criteria Checklist & Comment Space" section dating back to the beginning of the year, and likely to be overlooked. So I'm copying it down here so it can be more easily found and discussed. I've also taken the liberty of intending them instead of making them a list, more in keeping with usual Talk comments.
I'm sorry I was tied up and didn't review at FAC before this was promoted; there are numerous WP:MOS and WP:WIAFA breaches that should be addressed, hopefully before this article is proposed for the main page. There is incorrect bolding throughout (unless that has been corrected since I first left the message); please see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD for descriptions of how and where to use bolding. There are also WP:DASH breaches throughout (no spaced emdashes on wiki). Citations are not all formatted; see criterion 2d of WP:WIAFA regarding consistent formatting of footnotes and examples at WP:CITE/ES. Publishers need to be identified on all sources so that reliability can be verified, last accessdate is given on websources, and author and publication date are listed when there is one. On a purely practical note, empty parameters in the cite templates chunk up the article size unnecessarily and make the article hard to edit it; I hope regular editors here don't insist on policy reasons for making common sense edits. Here are examples of poorly formatted or incomplete citations (samples only):
I'll check back periodically to see if these items have been addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In this edit SandyGeorgia noted in the edit summary, "more cleanup, missing publishers, almost no IBSNs on books". While ISBNs are a nice addition, as "[[WP:CITE/ES#Books|The ISBN ... is optional," it doesn't seem worth specifically calling out as a fix. And listing publishers can help identify sources as reliable and generally improve the article, I don't see any guidelines making it something we need to do. So long as enough information is present to identify and investigate the source, that should be plenty. In the case of web sites, it's easy enough for another editor to check it out. These both seem like good improvements (and many thanks for adding them!), but not necessarily things we absolutely need, say, to be feature article material. (I have no thoughts on the dashes, and agree that the less formatted citations really could do with a good polishing up.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think SandyGeorgia's concerns have been addressed now. Congratulations to all the authors who contributed to this FA article! Likely the page will still need periodic weeding to correct for entropy, and front page exposure tends to produce a blizzard of edits (not all of them useful). Good luck. — RJH ( talk) 18:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good; good luck on the main page! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The following addition:
is unsourced and (to me) presents a particular point-of-view. I moved it here pending references to corroborate the opinions presented. It also presents more detail than is provided by the "Related products" section, so it is not a summary (and hence belongs in the body). No offense was intended toward the editor by this act; it just needs to be done in order to maintain the page's FA status. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article (obviously, or it wouldn't be featured), but I was surprised there was no mention of the game as a social activity -- something friends get together to do on a weeknight or weekend, ordering or cooking food (especially pizza and soda pop) -- along with how groups often rotate the DM either within a campaign or among several different campaigns or even other RPGs. I realize a lot of this is not unique to D&D but D&D remains the reference point for gaming culture. Powers T 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My understanding was that the whole reason that AD&D was called that was because of some contractual agreement between Gygax and Arneson, where TSR could avoid paying Arneson some royalty if the game wasn't literally called D&D. AD&D wasn't literally named D&D, so Arneson got no royalties from it. Then Arneson and Gygax didn't speak for 20 years, or something. If someone could verify this, or the grain of truth from whence this story came, it ought to be present in the History section. Tempshill 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I read this article over a year ago, and it was... ahem... not ready for prime time. You have really done a spectacular job. -- Ssilvers 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, great job as well, this is one of the topics that can easily get out of hands, and I am sure one look at the history would confirm it has, but you managed to make the front page. [DnD Geek]You just rolled a natural 20 on the Craft Article check[/DnD Geek] Youkai no unmei 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to lock this article for today since it seems to be undergoing persistent vandalism. Dp76764 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes! Maybe just blocking the IP's that are vandalizing then? Dp76764 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the recently added "Online communities" section. Here is what it looked like at the time of deletion. It didn't really say anything interesting. That a hobby community would form online communities isn't noteworthy. The link to dndonlinegames failed to cite anything at all. The link to Gleemax failed to support the idea that WotC was attempting to capitalize (indeed, D&D Insider is the attempt to capitalize). Perhaps we should include a brief note about online gaming, but I'm not sure it needs a full section, and we'll need some better citations. Given that the article recently received Featured Article status, and my desire to enjoy the FA glow for at least a few weeks, I'm erring on the side of caution and deleting it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Part of the discussion during the FAC process resulted in the addition of the word "tabletop" to the first sentence in the article. I've been trying to maintain good faith by restoring the word whenever it is deleted, but at least one editor finds it objectionable. So, I'd like to ask the article audience which is better:
I understand that the later is not literally true, but the word "tabletop" was added to indicate that is by far the most common mode by which this game is played. Comments appreciated, thank you. — RJH ( talk) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
before chaning i think it should be discussed. Hackmaster was created from a real licensing of the AD&D material. it was not a product under the OGL, and WAS AD&D material not D&D as the section last changed before this posting suggests. i propose that it state it is a satyrical look at AD&D rather than elluding to it being any of the D&D version without the Advanced nomeclature added. and that it be understood that it was a license and K&C held the copyright to the matreial for time of about 7 years until recently WotC did not renew it. whatever sources to prove it was a real license i will leave to people better at finding sources, but the game itself is the source that it is a satire of AD&D not D&D as was present in the KoDT comic. again i would jsut change this, but wanted to prevent some edit war now that we had seen the rise to FA status with this article. shadzar| Talk| contribs 09:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like upload Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg on Commons (it has a free license), but I think that it will be deleted there, because it needs fair use, it's a derivative work from copyrighted works (see this section of Commons:Derivative works). I think that the shoot it's too much close to the miniatures.-- Trixt 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
In the "Edition History" section, there's a bit of confusion about the Basic Sets. The first one was by Holmes, as mentioned, and the second was by Moldvay. However, the "Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals" progression didn't exist until the third revision of the Basic Set, by Frank Mentzer. The Moldvay version consisted only of the Basic and Expert sets. (Thus, Moldvay-era D&D is referred to as "B/X", while Mentzer-era is "BECMI".) The different versions are distinct enough that they (all three) have their proponents and regular players, even now, with "Rules Cyclopedia D&D ("RC") being still a fourth permutation. (In addition, the "Immortals Set" wasn't so much reprinted in '91, as it was revamped into "Wrath of the Immortals", a supplement for the Rules Cyclopedia.) The text only needs a few small changes, but this is an important distinction to make. (For confirmation of this, check www.acaeum.com.) -- DestroyYouAlot 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RJHall: You can consider it authoritative or not, but the information presented is still factual, and commonly known among collectors and players of these editions. If the Acaeum doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for references, I can find another reference. The article is a summary, granted, but if it's going to contain information about two of the authors of the major revisions of the Basic Set, it should contain the third - or none of their names, and simply link to the edition article. As it stands, it's a rather glaring omission. (The "Editions of D&D" article isn't missing this information, so no need to edit that.)-- DestroyYouAlot 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The header section now includes three different redirects when only one is actually needed. (The other two should be covered adequately by the second.) I'd like to propose replacing the three redirects with this one:
Are there any objections? — RJH ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why the external link for the Wikia Wiki is so high up at the top when it is a horrible wiki. The D&D Wiki is totally active... recent changes was all filled up, but Wikia's had only 2 edits. It seem like it is very biased to me. TheFlow 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted both. Anyone considering readding them, be sure to specify exactly what information is on those sites that can't be included in articles here but is reference material. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I would note here point 4 of the "Links to be considered" section of the External Links guideline: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that is (should be?) on a D&D wiki, and is also the stuff which is (reasonably in many cases) being removed from Wikipedia. -- Pak21 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)