![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Does this make any sense, and is there any information to back this up or prepare to include in the WotC article about, or watch for? [1] Some big names in D&D in there. It would be the second set of layoffs this year if true, and should probably be put into the respective articles relating to those people that are under the project's eyes. shadzar- talk 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) WotC has had annual December layoffs since 2000, I believe - certainly they've had them in the same years they released 3.0 and 3.5, releasing some big names each time. Granted the economy sucks this year, but this is nothing new. As for the "hoax" question: it has been verified by Lisa Stevens, Sean Reynolds, Jeff Grubb, and Eric Haddock (husband of Julia Martin), so I'm leaning toward "not hoax." Snuppy 14:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~undent~ For non-subscribers of the digital product for D&D the latest news article talks about the layoffs and some other facts. Digital Insider #18 shadzar- talk 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I've added a "News" section to the page in a scroll, so that we can pretty much just leave everything there and just add new announcements to the top of the scroll. I've also changed the height of the other scrolls on the page so that everything looks a bit better. - Drilnoth ( talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
...according to Gavin.collins! [8]. I know that it's an old quote (I had just come across it while searching for even more examples), but I thought that is was worth mentioning here so that everyone could see it again. - Drilnoth ( talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Does Races of Stone include reliable secondary sources which establish notability? - Drilnoth ( talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you've ever been there, but [9] D&Dwiki is a D&D site (can only carry OGL & SRD & Homebrew stuff but still good) that can always use more good members. The people here are perfect to help out over there. Alot of the items that can't qualify to be placed here can be placed there. If you do sign up just stop by and see me, I'm Hooper [10] on that site. Hooper ( talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Does it really make sense to change the colors around? Personally, I think that the page seems pretty bland now. - Drilnoth ( talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since this project has been involved in the dispute regarding him, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
BOZ did a great job getting the D&D monster lists up and functional, but I think that there is still a lot of room for improvement. Here's an idea of mine so that we can make the lists more comprehensive. I've tested this out in a set of user subpages already, so I know that it works. It would take a lot of time and effort, granted, but I think it would be worthwhile.
Basically, we add another column to each of the lists, entitled "Variants," or something like that. This column would be used to indicate that there are multiple different versions of the creature in the same book, such as the v3.5 MM containing the "Aboleth Mage" in addition to the "Aboleth." Currently, the "Description" column is being used for that.
Doing this would then free up the "Description" column so that we could put a paragraph or so of information on each monster in it, allowing all of the short stub articles to be more easily merged into the lists instead of simply being redirected.
Thoughts? Questions? - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This rpg net site has a pretty impressive index of White Dwarf back issues. By citing the magazine articles in question ({{ cite journal}}), the reviews in later issues may be useful for addressing notability concerns. (I found a slew of other magazines listed on the site as well. Wish they'd be more informative about the authors though.)— RJH ( talk) 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Design & Development: Cosmology: Reimagining the Planes
Infinite planes stagger the imagination. If things were really infinite, you could walk for millions of miles across the burning plain of Avernus and not actually be any bit closer to your goal. And how many devils does it take to fill an infinite plane with a suitable population density? DMs just handwaved these questions before, but we wondered if it was really necessary for everything to be infinite when most D&D games visited just a few specific points of interest in each plane.
I don't know who is really working on the cosmology type articles, but this is some really crazy stuff to work with and include int he article. Basically all places are to be defined and you aren't supposed to image new stuff for D&D, and everyone is supposed to be playing in the same tiny park rather than having the option of going elsewhere?
We don’t want to print settings with long lists of exceptions and modifications to powers and effects. It’s better to use a setting’s “exceptionalism currency” to deal with the specific locales and entities you have to deal with, not the mechanical workings of planar creatures and travels.
All the settings are one setting now or something? All the "strange things" from settings are going to be removed to make things work better together? I do not evny whoever is working on those articles, but there is some mighty heavy stuff being said in there that changes the past concept of infinite possibilities for D&D and imagination and tries to reign in ideas to only a few things from published works.
We want Eberron players to be able to buy a book like Manual of the Planes and use it in their games.
Again be careful not to infere my guesses into the articles, but it seems all settings will be founded on just one thing and all of them will be directly connected under the new cosmology so there is only one real setting now since diversity will be limited for cooperative design. So where is the best article to place some of this stuff in, or discuss it more directly to include into an article(s) in a factual way? shadzar- talk 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In this thread [11], it is claimed that the WotC Spring 2009 Catalog confirms Goliath as one of the races in PHB2, and in this thread [12], it is claimed that that the WotC Summer 2009 Catalog lists Avenger and Invoker as divine classes. Could someone with access to the catalogs cite them and add this information to the Player's Handbook and list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes articles? It's going to be moot for Invokers once they release the preview next Monday, but I'm not aware of any alternate sources for Goliaths in PHB2 or Avengers as a divine class. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
We are being given a chance to prove we can clean up articles in a (mostly) hassle-free environment [16]. How do we want to continue? Web Warlock ( talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
~undent~ I don't think the project has any need to prove itself to anyone. I am offended by such thought that I need to prove myself to anyone for any reason! I think what should be done, is what has been done all along. Get to what you can when you can. I am no writer, and can only research things. Ask what you need, and if I can find reference anywhere I will stick it on a talk page for proper inclusion into an article as I have always done. Pick whatever is being done now work on one article at a time. when things such as merges come up and interrupt progress, move to the merge discussion and try to fix it however it needs to be done. those interruptions will always occur, and only a few people cannot do it all which is why the project has moved so slowly for so long. I suggest taking care of the long standing merge discussion for DM and GM and get it resolved, and come back to other things. But I just don't like things half done and forgotten. Is there a way to make a page for the project that is categories of articles that have certain cleanup tags on them for the articles within the projects scope itself only? projects with the merge tag, or such that updates automatically that can be watched to handle those first and then move on to the next important tags and cleanup those and keep going until done? shadzar- talk 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
At one point someone mentioned the possibility of making the Greyhawk, FR, and such projects into Taskforces under us. Whats the current thoughts on this? Hooper ( talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Does the appearance of a D&D monster, spell, character or magic item in a commercial computer game constitute independent evidence of notability? For example, phase spiders appear in some parts of the Baldur's Gate computer game from BioWare, and I think some of the old gold box games had them as well. Would a mention of this provide independent evidence of notability? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to look up Margaret Weis Productions for some research on the company and found that it had been merged into the article for Margaret Weis. After doing some digging, I have found out that it was tagged with a notable tag and a merge tag within a five minute period and then merged within just three hours of the merger request (despite a person disputing the merger on the Margaret Weis article's discussion page and no mass agreement on merger taking place).
Anyway, I've restored the article and pulled both of the unhelpful tags. There was also another clean up tag (which is appropriate) because this article badly needs improvement. I have also pointed Margaret Weis Productions back at Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd, so hopefully everything should be in the state it was before the merger. (Please feel free to double-check my work as this is the first time I have reverted a deleted article.)
The Sovereign Press, Inc article had a link to this wikiproject on its talk page (probably because of the link with the Dragonlance Campaign Setting, so I have added a similar link on the MWP article. I hope you can help improve both of these article stubs.
One thing that bothers me, is that I think there is a bit of confusion between the two companies and am concerned (especially with the lack of decent citations) that things done by MWP have been attributed to SP. (I'm pretty sure, for example that MWP - not SP - signed the deal for the Battlestar Galactica licence.) I have asked for help on the Dragonlance Forums and hope the experts there will help identify reliable secondary sources that can confirm the facts. I hope that this project can (at least) help out with the information relating to the Dragonlance licence between SP and WotC, its transfer to MWP and its return to WotC. Big Mac ( talk) 16:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.
I've just created a new article hit page for the project so that we can track the popularity of our most important articles and try to work on them in approximate order of how many hits they get, so that the articles that people see most are improved before those that aren't looked at very often. - Drilnoth ( talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
A number of the "monster" articles have been organized with many brief sections. (See for example the Githyanki article, which has a separate brief section for each release, &c.) This conflicts with the guidelines under Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections about very short sections. In short, the articles make tempting targets for a {{ Cleanup-restructure}} template. I wanted to (gently) mention it here as this issue is widespread, so I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss. =) Many of those section headers could be merged into the text instead, producing fewer sections and improving the flow. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Does this make any sense, and is there any information to back this up or prepare to include in the WotC article about, or watch for? [1] Some big names in D&D in there. It would be the second set of layoffs this year if true, and should probably be put into the respective articles relating to those people that are under the project's eyes. shadzar- talk 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) WotC has had annual December layoffs since 2000, I believe - certainly they've had them in the same years they released 3.0 and 3.5, releasing some big names each time. Granted the economy sucks this year, but this is nothing new. As for the "hoax" question: it has been verified by Lisa Stevens, Sean Reynolds, Jeff Grubb, and Eric Haddock (husband of Julia Martin), so I'm leaning toward "not hoax." Snuppy 14:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~undent~ For non-subscribers of the digital product for D&D the latest news article talks about the layoffs and some other facts. Digital Insider #18 shadzar- talk 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I've added a "News" section to the page in a scroll, so that we can pretty much just leave everything there and just add new announcements to the top of the scroll. I've also changed the height of the other scrolls on the page so that everything looks a bit better. - Drilnoth ( talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
...according to Gavin.collins! [8]. I know that it's an old quote (I had just come across it while searching for even more examples), but I thought that is was worth mentioning here so that everyone could see it again. - Drilnoth ( talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Does Races of Stone include reliable secondary sources which establish notability? - Drilnoth ( talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you've ever been there, but [9] D&Dwiki is a D&D site (can only carry OGL & SRD & Homebrew stuff but still good) that can always use more good members. The people here are perfect to help out over there. Alot of the items that can't qualify to be placed here can be placed there. If you do sign up just stop by and see me, I'm Hooper [10] on that site. Hooper ( talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Does it really make sense to change the colors around? Personally, I think that the page seems pretty bland now. - Drilnoth ( talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since this project has been involved in the dispute regarding him, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
BOZ did a great job getting the D&D monster lists up and functional, but I think that there is still a lot of room for improvement. Here's an idea of mine so that we can make the lists more comprehensive. I've tested this out in a set of user subpages already, so I know that it works. It would take a lot of time and effort, granted, but I think it would be worthwhile.
Basically, we add another column to each of the lists, entitled "Variants," or something like that. This column would be used to indicate that there are multiple different versions of the creature in the same book, such as the v3.5 MM containing the "Aboleth Mage" in addition to the "Aboleth." Currently, the "Description" column is being used for that.
Doing this would then free up the "Description" column so that we could put a paragraph or so of information on each monster in it, allowing all of the short stub articles to be more easily merged into the lists instead of simply being redirected.
Thoughts? Questions? - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This rpg net site has a pretty impressive index of White Dwarf back issues. By citing the magazine articles in question ({{ cite journal}}), the reviews in later issues may be useful for addressing notability concerns. (I found a slew of other magazines listed on the site as well. Wish they'd be more informative about the authors though.)— RJH ( talk) 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Design & Development: Cosmology: Reimagining the Planes
Infinite planes stagger the imagination. If things were really infinite, you could walk for millions of miles across the burning plain of Avernus and not actually be any bit closer to your goal. And how many devils does it take to fill an infinite plane with a suitable population density? DMs just handwaved these questions before, but we wondered if it was really necessary for everything to be infinite when most D&D games visited just a few specific points of interest in each plane.
I don't know who is really working on the cosmology type articles, but this is some really crazy stuff to work with and include int he article. Basically all places are to be defined and you aren't supposed to image new stuff for D&D, and everyone is supposed to be playing in the same tiny park rather than having the option of going elsewhere?
We don’t want to print settings with long lists of exceptions and modifications to powers and effects. It’s better to use a setting’s “exceptionalism currency” to deal with the specific locales and entities you have to deal with, not the mechanical workings of planar creatures and travels.
All the settings are one setting now or something? All the "strange things" from settings are going to be removed to make things work better together? I do not evny whoever is working on those articles, but there is some mighty heavy stuff being said in there that changes the past concept of infinite possibilities for D&D and imagination and tries to reign in ideas to only a few things from published works.
We want Eberron players to be able to buy a book like Manual of the Planes and use it in their games.
Again be careful not to infere my guesses into the articles, but it seems all settings will be founded on just one thing and all of them will be directly connected under the new cosmology so there is only one real setting now since diversity will be limited for cooperative design. So where is the best article to place some of this stuff in, or discuss it more directly to include into an article(s) in a factual way? shadzar- talk 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In this thread [11], it is claimed that the WotC Spring 2009 Catalog confirms Goliath as one of the races in PHB2, and in this thread [12], it is claimed that that the WotC Summer 2009 Catalog lists Avenger and Invoker as divine classes. Could someone with access to the catalogs cite them and add this information to the Player's Handbook and list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes articles? It's going to be moot for Invokers once they release the preview next Monday, but I'm not aware of any alternate sources for Goliaths in PHB2 or Avengers as a divine class. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
We are being given a chance to prove we can clean up articles in a (mostly) hassle-free environment [16]. How do we want to continue? Web Warlock ( talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
~undent~ I don't think the project has any need to prove itself to anyone. I am offended by such thought that I need to prove myself to anyone for any reason! I think what should be done, is what has been done all along. Get to what you can when you can. I am no writer, and can only research things. Ask what you need, and if I can find reference anywhere I will stick it on a talk page for proper inclusion into an article as I have always done. Pick whatever is being done now work on one article at a time. when things such as merges come up and interrupt progress, move to the merge discussion and try to fix it however it needs to be done. those interruptions will always occur, and only a few people cannot do it all which is why the project has moved so slowly for so long. I suggest taking care of the long standing merge discussion for DM and GM and get it resolved, and come back to other things. But I just don't like things half done and forgotten. Is there a way to make a page for the project that is categories of articles that have certain cleanup tags on them for the articles within the projects scope itself only? projects with the merge tag, or such that updates automatically that can be watched to handle those first and then move on to the next important tags and cleanup those and keep going until done? shadzar- talk 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
At one point someone mentioned the possibility of making the Greyhawk, FR, and such projects into Taskforces under us. Whats the current thoughts on this? Hooper ( talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Does the appearance of a D&D monster, spell, character or magic item in a commercial computer game constitute independent evidence of notability? For example, phase spiders appear in some parts of the Baldur's Gate computer game from BioWare, and I think some of the old gold box games had them as well. Would a mention of this provide independent evidence of notability? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to look up Margaret Weis Productions for some research on the company and found that it had been merged into the article for Margaret Weis. After doing some digging, I have found out that it was tagged with a notable tag and a merge tag within a five minute period and then merged within just three hours of the merger request (despite a person disputing the merger on the Margaret Weis article's discussion page and no mass agreement on merger taking place).
Anyway, I've restored the article and pulled both of the unhelpful tags. There was also another clean up tag (which is appropriate) because this article badly needs improvement. I have also pointed Margaret Weis Productions back at Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd, so hopefully everything should be in the state it was before the merger. (Please feel free to double-check my work as this is the first time I have reverted a deleted article.)
The Sovereign Press, Inc article had a link to this wikiproject on its talk page (probably because of the link with the Dragonlance Campaign Setting, so I have added a similar link on the MWP article. I hope you can help improve both of these article stubs.
One thing that bothers me, is that I think there is a bit of confusion between the two companies and am concerned (especially with the lack of decent citations) that things done by MWP have been attributed to SP. (I'm pretty sure, for example that MWP - not SP - signed the deal for the Battlestar Galactica licence.) I have asked for help on the Dragonlance Forums and hope the experts there will help identify reliable secondary sources that can confirm the facts. I hope that this project can (at least) help out with the information relating to the Dragonlance licence between SP and WotC, its transfer to MWP and its return to WotC. Big Mac ( talk) 16:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.
I've just created a new article hit page for the project so that we can track the popularity of our most important articles and try to work on them in approximate order of how many hits they get, so that the articles that people see most are improved before those that aren't looked at very often. - Drilnoth ( talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
A number of the "monster" articles have been organized with many brief sections. (See for example the Githyanki article, which has a separate brief section for each release, &c.) This conflicts with the guidelines under Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections about very short sections. In short, the articles make tempting targets for a {{ Cleanup-restructure}} template. I wanted to (gently) mention it here as this issue is widespread, so I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss. =) Many of those section headers could be merged into the text instead, producing fewer sections and improving the flow. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |