![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Since the original lead text for this section was archived, I figured I'd add something new. :) While we have been focused (rather successfully, so far) on getting various modules to GA status, there are plenty of ideas for other subjects at that archive link. But, when it comes to modules, we've had the most success there, so why not continue. :) Expedition to the Barrier Peaks has already been nominated, White Plume Mountain just followed it to GAN, and The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is probably like to get a nom soon as well.
So, there are a number of other module articles that already have some independent sources, and probably shouldn't require a ton of work to get them moving. Against the Giants and Isle of Dread shouldn't require a ton of work. Scourge of the Slave Lords, Palace of the Silver Princess, and The Keep on the Borderlands have a lot of potential. There are plenty of others as well, including Against the Cult of the Reptile God, Castle Amber, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, In Search of the Unknown, The Assassin's Knot, The Ghost Tower of Inverness, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, The Lost City, The Secret of Bone Hill, Tomb of the Lizard King, Vault of the Drow, and more. BOZ ( talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Another one for GA - we're on a roll! :) Any other suggestions? BOZ ( talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To try and focus the project's energy on a specific task, why don't we try to get a Good Topic? Dungeons & Dragons is already an FA and could be the lead article. Dungeons & Dragons controversies, Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics, and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons could round out the topic. I'm not including some articles, like Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture, because they aren't as essential to an understanding of D&D; I think that a good coverage of the game needs those four key articles. Do you think it's a good idea? Do you think that a different article selection is needed? - Drilnoth ( talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If you look at where our GA's currently stand and seem to be going, it seems that if we fix up Adventure (Dungeons & Dragons) really nicely, we could get an FT out of that, with Ravenloft (D&D module), Dragons of Despair, Tomb of Horrors, and a few others on our plate. That might be the most viable FT idea at the moment. :) Anything else will probably take a lot more work. Note that Dwellers of the Forbidden City is waiting for a GA review, and I have suggested Isle of Dread for our next GAN... BOZ ( talk) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added some searches to the reference page. [1] [2] It has stuff like this awsome commentary on Tomb of Horrors. A lot of the refs are from the blog part of wired.com, but if you check the author and they also write news stories and other official commentary for wired, then they are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Forgotten Realms has been absorbed into this WikiProject and relaunched as a 'work team' for Forgotten Realms.
But that doesn't change the fact that the project had mostly stalled.
I think that delition of D&D articles in general has made a lot of Wikipedians feel that they 'enjoy' Wikipedia less than before.
I also think that Forgotten Realms Wiki has emerged as a way for people to write a lot more detail about Forgotten Realms than they are 'allowed' to write here.
I think the fact that people here have had a feeling that they are 'swimming up hill' against a delitionist tide has led to a bit of a brain drain of FR aware editors from here to FR Wiki. But rather than blame that wiki, I actually think they can help this WikiProject to reinvent the FR Work Team.
I have posted a topic over in the FR Work Team discussion area called: A call for formal cooperation between this 'work team' and Forgotten Realms Wiki.
I have also gone to the FR Wiki forum and posted an invitation for them to join the discussion. That invitation is in a topic called: A call for formal cooperation between this wiki and the D&D WikiProject 'work team' for Forgotten Realms.
I hope that people from the main project will work with FR Wiki to get this work team working in a way that benifits both projects.
(Please reply in the FR Work Team discussion area, rather than here.) Big Mac ( talk) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I joined Wikipedia a few years ago. In more recent times I have seen a lot of D&D articles tagged for deletion. I even lost two images, because I hadn't given all the correct information to stop someone tagging them and erasing them. To be honest the page they were added to got rearranged and it wasn't worth my while to find a way to put them back into the new context.
But I know from my experience that writing on Wikipedia can be frustrating. And I think that a lot of people are getting fed up and either stopping or going somewhere else. Forgotten Realms Wiki is doing very well, as is the Greyhawk related wiki on Canonfire! Dragonlance fans have the Dragonlance Lexicon, which isn't a wiki, but is a DL encyclopedia.
I have seen that some people here have been trying to combat the delitionist tagging of D&D articles (and putting in a lot of effort to preserve the work of others). But it seems to me that there are a lot of badly written D&D articles and that 'fighting delitionists' instead of creating new D&D related content, is probably not what people in this project want to be spending most of their time doing.
I wonder if it might be sensible for this project to spend a bit of time helping inexperienced Wikipedians to write 'better' D&D articles. If new Wikipedians (and Wikipedians making common mistakes) could be pointed towards a few 'how to's that explained things, that might avoid the need for some of the table tennis battles to save endangered articles.
I know that there are tutorials on Wikipedia. I've been pointed to many of them myself. But I personally find that there is too much information (and that the help doesn't really allow you to work out what parts are most important). I think that a series of shorter articles that explained the Wikipedia issues specifically from a 'D&D fans point of view' could cut through all the non-vital Wikipedia policies and help people understand (and address) the biggest issues that are causing D&D articles to be tagged. (And don't forget that they could still point people onwards to the fuller articles that deal with more universal subjects.)
There has recently been a push to make D&D artiles 'better' and I would like to see the people who know how to do that 'pass that knowledge on' and enable more of us to pick up on their tips and tricks. So a 'How to expand a D&D stub' tutorial or a 'How to improve a D&D article' tutorial would be benificial to people who don't necessarily want to join this project.
If we had some 'How to's like that, then maybe someone could make some (polite) templates that could be placed onto people's talk pages when their D&D articles got tagged for problems. I think I would rather be told why my article caused a problem (and how to fix it) than just have my work deleted.
I even wonder if we could get some of the people who have been tagging D&D articles and nominating them for deletion to help write tutorials that point people to the secondary sources and other resources that can help them write articles that are more stable. I know that some of them have caused people here to do some unnecessarily hard work saving articles, but if they genuninly want Wikipedia to be better, I would hope that they would be willing to help people create documentation that will reduce the need for articles to get tagged in the first place. Big Mac ( talk) 02:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The best tutorial is to try and bring a D&D article up to good article status, and ask questions here. You do that, you're good to go. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to give you a heads up. I saw the Beholder article had a snazzy infobox that the Giff] article didn't.
As I am a fan of Spelljammer, and know a couple of fan artists who make very good SJ artwork, I put in a request for help over at the Spelljammer forum at The Piazza called Wikipedia artwork request.
I got speedy help from a fantastic 3D artist, who goes by the name of Silverblade and has a ton of 3D Spelljammer art (as well as some 3D Dark Sun art and 3D Forgottten Realms art). His website is called Silverblade's Suitcase.
I can't make promises for other people, but he has made a 3D model of a Neogi and (if he can get it right) he might be willing to make an image for the Wikipedia article. (I also write over at Spelljammer Wiki and am hoping he will help me out over there.)
But what I have noticed, is that there are some great fan artists out there, who are willing to make free art, but are not so keen on writing HTML or wikicode. I wonder if it is worth this project creating some sort of 'outreach program' to find external helpers who will work with Wikipedians to help illustrate some of the D&D articles that don't have artwork (or that currently have artwork that shouldn't be on the articles). The Dragonlance Nexus website (and its smaller Dragonlance Lexicon encyclopedia project) are very good at attracting in fan artists. I bet there are a number of people out there, who just don't know this WikiProject exists.
People were proposing that additional teams (to go with the DL, GH and FR) teams were created. I wonder if an 'outreach team' could be used to obtain external help from people like artists (and even D&D authors). I know that, while I don't have very much time at the moment, I would be interested in being part of a Spelljammer Work Team. Big Mac ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(redent) We could put this on Elf. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
From conversations above, I think it's clear that there are quite a few articles in the project that need to be merged, or at least need to undergo a merge discussion. Rather than hold numerous separate merge discussions on multiple talk pages, does anyone think it would be more productive to create a subpage of this project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Merge workshop or similar) where all such merges can be proposed and discussed? Pagra shtak 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Pagra, thanks for handling the little monster stubs. I'm much happier to see them merged somewhere where they can still be fed, cleaned, and cared for rather than deleted. ;) BOZ ( talk) 16:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
.:Hello, i'm a newish wikipedian and i would like to participate in this project. Where is the list of users who participate in this project? Eleanor Cramphorn ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep an eye out. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow PF, you were right - that was quick! Excellent work you guys. What's next? :) BOZ ( talk) 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I did some work on Tomb of Horrors. Please comment here or there if you have any opionions. The one thing I don't like about it is that it doesn't have many sections. I merged a bunch of them into publication history because they didn't have enough info to support themselves. I think the plot could probably be expanded into it's own section. I could do it by reading the module, but I'm hoping someone here already knows the plot. Anyone? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What is our rational for including these sources? I've noticed a number of other sources in our GAs that are also questionable. If you want to use them, that's fine. I certainly wouldn't put them up for GAR or anything. I just think we should iron out which sources we want to use in GAs, and have a rational backing them up. Ideally, we should get reliable sources/noticeboard rulings from uninvolved editors in our favor that we can point to. Looking at Ravenloft (D&D module), I would question Dragonlance Nexus, The Fraternity of Shadows, RPGnet, and EN World. I don't want to put this on the peer review page and get people thinking about them too much, or maybe that would be a good way to get a ruling (if anyone ever shows up)? If we don't think we can get a positive ruling, but want to use them anyways, maybe we should make a project subpage with a rational for each source on why it should be allowed. That would be nice to point to in FACs and GANs. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous short deity articles, and these should be one of our primary focuses for the merge effort. How do we want these organized? Drilnoth has suggested three ideas—"by setting, by power level, or just all together"—but I'd like to rule out any in-universe groupings, such as power level. Right now we've got List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, List of Dragonlance deities, List of Forgotten Realms deities, and List of Greyhawk deities for top-level articles. Are these going to be sufficient merge targets, or do we need a different structure? Pagra shtak 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not opposed to the idea of merging those, but most of the deities in the by-race articles are general and don't really belong to one setting, so most of them would be in the "general" list. Having them split out would make that larger list a bit shorter, but it doesn't really matter to me. - Drilnoth ( talk) 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The KQ is a magazine like Dragon, that is still publishing and also appears to be independent. Issues listing here. It's not free, unfortunately. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hah - this, this, this, and this were me collecting and converting old D&D and other material to The Fantasy Trip (progenitor of GURPS), heck, may as well boomerang some to 4e... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Crap, I even did this... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the introduction of roles for monsters in the 4th edition I think they should be included in the monster list. Also variants may appear in different books or pages. Because in this edition there is not base monster I believe some type of monsters will have large number of variants. ex: Dragons already have 5 variants (Wyrmling, young, adult, elder, ancient). So what I am driving at is that maybe the table format should be changed for 4th edition. I give example below.
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Example as it stands now
The type of list I have in mind
|
comments?-- LexCorp ( talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Creature | Variants | Role | Page | Other Appearances | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aboleth | Aboleth Lasher | Brute | 8 | PHB2 |
|
I could use some information regarding Minsc in the book if possible, more readily how the character differs from the video game counterpart and what happens to him. Need the info so I can add info about his appearances in literary work to the character article.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I recall somewhere reading that the inspiration behind this was the Sandworms in Dune, but I can't for the life of me recall where I read it. I feel this is the sort of info that would improve Purple worm greatly. Does anyone remember this as well? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any pull with them? If we explained that we need out-of-universe info on subjects, I wonder if they would provide some? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've renominated Ravenloft (module) at WP:FAC. All input on the review page would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Since the original lead text for this section was archived, I figured I'd add something new. :) While we have been focused (rather successfully, so far) on getting various modules to GA status, there are plenty of ideas for other subjects at that archive link. But, when it comes to modules, we've had the most success there, so why not continue. :) Expedition to the Barrier Peaks has already been nominated, White Plume Mountain just followed it to GAN, and The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is probably like to get a nom soon as well.
So, there are a number of other module articles that already have some independent sources, and probably shouldn't require a ton of work to get them moving. Against the Giants and Isle of Dread shouldn't require a ton of work. Scourge of the Slave Lords, Palace of the Silver Princess, and The Keep on the Borderlands have a lot of potential. There are plenty of others as well, including Against the Cult of the Reptile God, Castle Amber, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, In Search of the Unknown, The Assassin's Knot, The Ghost Tower of Inverness, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, The Lost City, The Secret of Bone Hill, Tomb of the Lizard King, Vault of the Drow, and more. BOZ ( talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Another one for GA - we're on a roll! :) Any other suggestions? BOZ ( talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To try and focus the project's energy on a specific task, why don't we try to get a Good Topic? Dungeons & Dragons is already an FA and could be the lead article. Dungeons & Dragons controversies, Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics, and Editions of Dungeons & Dragons could round out the topic. I'm not including some articles, like Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture, because they aren't as essential to an understanding of D&D; I think that a good coverage of the game needs those four key articles. Do you think it's a good idea? Do you think that a different article selection is needed? - Drilnoth ( talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If you look at where our GA's currently stand and seem to be going, it seems that if we fix up Adventure (Dungeons & Dragons) really nicely, we could get an FT out of that, with Ravenloft (D&D module), Dragons of Despair, Tomb of Horrors, and a few others on our plate. That might be the most viable FT idea at the moment. :) Anything else will probably take a lot more work. Note that Dwellers of the Forbidden City is waiting for a GA review, and I have suggested Isle of Dread for our next GAN... BOZ ( talk) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added some searches to the reference page. [1] [2] It has stuff like this awsome commentary on Tomb of Horrors. A lot of the refs are from the blog part of wired.com, but if you check the author and they also write news stories and other official commentary for wired, then they are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Forgotten Realms has been absorbed into this WikiProject and relaunched as a 'work team' for Forgotten Realms.
But that doesn't change the fact that the project had mostly stalled.
I think that delition of D&D articles in general has made a lot of Wikipedians feel that they 'enjoy' Wikipedia less than before.
I also think that Forgotten Realms Wiki has emerged as a way for people to write a lot more detail about Forgotten Realms than they are 'allowed' to write here.
I think the fact that people here have had a feeling that they are 'swimming up hill' against a delitionist tide has led to a bit of a brain drain of FR aware editors from here to FR Wiki. But rather than blame that wiki, I actually think they can help this WikiProject to reinvent the FR Work Team.
I have posted a topic over in the FR Work Team discussion area called: A call for formal cooperation between this 'work team' and Forgotten Realms Wiki.
I have also gone to the FR Wiki forum and posted an invitation for them to join the discussion. That invitation is in a topic called: A call for formal cooperation between this wiki and the D&D WikiProject 'work team' for Forgotten Realms.
I hope that people from the main project will work with FR Wiki to get this work team working in a way that benifits both projects.
(Please reply in the FR Work Team discussion area, rather than here.) Big Mac ( talk) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I joined Wikipedia a few years ago. In more recent times I have seen a lot of D&D articles tagged for deletion. I even lost two images, because I hadn't given all the correct information to stop someone tagging them and erasing them. To be honest the page they were added to got rearranged and it wasn't worth my while to find a way to put them back into the new context.
But I know from my experience that writing on Wikipedia can be frustrating. And I think that a lot of people are getting fed up and either stopping or going somewhere else. Forgotten Realms Wiki is doing very well, as is the Greyhawk related wiki on Canonfire! Dragonlance fans have the Dragonlance Lexicon, which isn't a wiki, but is a DL encyclopedia.
I have seen that some people here have been trying to combat the delitionist tagging of D&D articles (and putting in a lot of effort to preserve the work of others). But it seems to me that there are a lot of badly written D&D articles and that 'fighting delitionists' instead of creating new D&D related content, is probably not what people in this project want to be spending most of their time doing.
I wonder if it might be sensible for this project to spend a bit of time helping inexperienced Wikipedians to write 'better' D&D articles. If new Wikipedians (and Wikipedians making common mistakes) could be pointed towards a few 'how to's that explained things, that might avoid the need for some of the table tennis battles to save endangered articles.
I know that there are tutorials on Wikipedia. I've been pointed to many of them myself. But I personally find that there is too much information (and that the help doesn't really allow you to work out what parts are most important). I think that a series of shorter articles that explained the Wikipedia issues specifically from a 'D&D fans point of view' could cut through all the non-vital Wikipedia policies and help people understand (and address) the biggest issues that are causing D&D articles to be tagged. (And don't forget that they could still point people onwards to the fuller articles that deal with more universal subjects.)
There has recently been a push to make D&D artiles 'better' and I would like to see the people who know how to do that 'pass that knowledge on' and enable more of us to pick up on their tips and tricks. So a 'How to expand a D&D stub' tutorial or a 'How to improve a D&D article' tutorial would be benificial to people who don't necessarily want to join this project.
If we had some 'How to's like that, then maybe someone could make some (polite) templates that could be placed onto people's talk pages when their D&D articles got tagged for problems. I think I would rather be told why my article caused a problem (and how to fix it) than just have my work deleted.
I even wonder if we could get some of the people who have been tagging D&D articles and nominating them for deletion to help write tutorials that point people to the secondary sources and other resources that can help them write articles that are more stable. I know that some of them have caused people here to do some unnecessarily hard work saving articles, but if they genuninly want Wikipedia to be better, I would hope that they would be willing to help people create documentation that will reduce the need for articles to get tagged in the first place. Big Mac ( talk) 02:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The best tutorial is to try and bring a D&D article up to good article status, and ask questions here. You do that, you're good to go. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to give you a heads up. I saw the Beholder article had a snazzy infobox that the Giff] article didn't.
As I am a fan of Spelljammer, and know a couple of fan artists who make very good SJ artwork, I put in a request for help over at the Spelljammer forum at The Piazza called Wikipedia artwork request.
I got speedy help from a fantastic 3D artist, who goes by the name of Silverblade and has a ton of 3D Spelljammer art (as well as some 3D Dark Sun art and 3D Forgottten Realms art). His website is called Silverblade's Suitcase.
I can't make promises for other people, but he has made a 3D model of a Neogi and (if he can get it right) he might be willing to make an image for the Wikipedia article. (I also write over at Spelljammer Wiki and am hoping he will help me out over there.)
But what I have noticed, is that there are some great fan artists out there, who are willing to make free art, but are not so keen on writing HTML or wikicode. I wonder if it is worth this project creating some sort of 'outreach program' to find external helpers who will work with Wikipedians to help illustrate some of the D&D articles that don't have artwork (or that currently have artwork that shouldn't be on the articles). The Dragonlance Nexus website (and its smaller Dragonlance Lexicon encyclopedia project) are very good at attracting in fan artists. I bet there are a number of people out there, who just don't know this WikiProject exists.
People were proposing that additional teams (to go with the DL, GH and FR) teams were created. I wonder if an 'outreach team' could be used to obtain external help from people like artists (and even D&D authors). I know that, while I don't have very much time at the moment, I would be interested in being part of a Spelljammer Work Team. Big Mac ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(redent) We could put this on Elf. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
From conversations above, I think it's clear that there are quite a few articles in the project that need to be merged, or at least need to undergo a merge discussion. Rather than hold numerous separate merge discussions on multiple talk pages, does anyone think it would be more productive to create a subpage of this project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Merge workshop or similar) where all such merges can be proposed and discussed? Pagra shtak 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Pagra, thanks for handling the little monster stubs. I'm much happier to see them merged somewhere where they can still be fed, cleaned, and cared for rather than deleted. ;) BOZ ( talk) 16:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
.:Hello, i'm a newish wikipedian and i would like to participate in this project. Where is the list of users who participate in this project? Eleanor Cramphorn ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep an eye out. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow PF, you were right - that was quick! Excellent work you guys. What's next? :) BOZ ( talk) 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I did some work on Tomb of Horrors. Please comment here or there if you have any opionions. The one thing I don't like about it is that it doesn't have many sections. I merged a bunch of them into publication history because they didn't have enough info to support themselves. I think the plot could probably be expanded into it's own section. I could do it by reading the module, but I'm hoping someone here already knows the plot. Anyone? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What is our rational for including these sources? I've noticed a number of other sources in our GAs that are also questionable. If you want to use them, that's fine. I certainly wouldn't put them up for GAR or anything. I just think we should iron out which sources we want to use in GAs, and have a rational backing them up. Ideally, we should get reliable sources/noticeboard rulings from uninvolved editors in our favor that we can point to. Looking at Ravenloft (D&D module), I would question Dragonlance Nexus, The Fraternity of Shadows, RPGnet, and EN World. I don't want to put this on the peer review page and get people thinking about them too much, or maybe that would be a good way to get a ruling (if anyone ever shows up)? If we don't think we can get a positive ruling, but want to use them anyways, maybe we should make a project subpage with a rational for each source on why it should be allowed. That would be nice to point to in FACs and GANs. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous short deity articles, and these should be one of our primary focuses for the merge effort. How do we want these organized? Drilnoth has suggested three ideas—"by setting, by power level, or just all together"—but I'd like to rule out any in-universe groupings, such as power level. Right now we've got List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, List of Dragonlance deities, List of Forgotten Realms deities, and List of Greyhawk deities for top-level articles. Are these going to be sufficient merge targets, or do we need a different structure? Pagra shtak 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not opposed to the idea of merging those, but most of the deities in the by-race articles are general and don't really belong to one setting, so most of them would be in the "general" list. Having them split out would make that larger list a bit shorter, but it doesn't really matter to me. - Drilnoth ( talk) 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The KQ is a magazine like Dragon, that is still publishing and also appears to be independent. Issues listing here. It's not free, unfortunately. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hah - this, this, this, and this were me collecting and converting old D&D and other material to The Fantasy Trip (progenitor of GURPS), heck, may as well boomerang some to 4e... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Crap, I even did this... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the introduction of roles for monsters in the 4th edition I think they should be included in the monster list. Also variants may appear in different books or pages. Because in this edition there is not base monster I believe some type of monsters will have large number of variants. ex: Dragons already have 5 variants (Wyrmling, young, adult, elder, ancient). So what I am driving at is that maybe the table format should be changed for 4th edition. I give example below.
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Example as it stands now
The type of list I have in mind
|
comments?-- LexCorp ( talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Creature | Variants | Role | Page | Other Appearances | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aboleth | Aboleth Lasher | Brute | 8 | PHB2 |
|
I could use some information regarding Minsc in the book if possible, more readily how the character differs from the video game counterpart and what happens to him. Need the info so I can add info about his appearances in literary work to the character article.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I recall somewhere reading that the inspiration behind this was the Sandworms in Dune, but I can't for the life of me recall where I read it. I feel this is the sort of info that would improve Purple worm greatly. Does anyone remember this as well? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any pull with them? If we explained that we need out-of-universe info on subjects, I wonder if they would provide some? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've renominated Ravenloft (module) at WP:FAC. All input on the review page would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)