![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Do we have it? Should we turn it on? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created a task force for D&D video games under WP:VG. If you're interested, head over and sign up. — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Talk:Dice/GA1. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Having just redirected (without merging) Barghest (Dungeons & Dragons) after is was prodded, I was wondering if we should more firmly establish what Redirect-Class is in the project. I think that it has been discussed before that this class could be used for all D&D-related articles which are redirected without being merged. I feel that this would be a good way to track such articles so that they can be merged at a later date. If there is consensus for this, then, I'll go through Category:Redirect-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles and properly reassess those which were merged to Merge-Class and delete those which have no non-redirect history under G6, linking to the discussion. Then we'd know what hasn't been merged. Your thoughts? – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
How does that sound for a category? I'm thinking stuff like Futurama: Bender's Game, which I just recently added to the project. It would need some defining. For example, Bender's Game mentions the game's name several times, shows characters playing D&D sessions in a few different scenes, and the entire plot involving Bender stems directly from his involement in D&D. Pretty solid case. :)
I'd say Anthology of Interest I (the one with Gygax in it) would not be an article for the D&D project. While D&D is mentioned, and Gygax is in there, D&D is more of a gag than anything integral to the plot, unlike Bender's Game.
To be included, I'd say something has to have a source stating that D&D inspired the product directly. Dungeons & Dragons (album), an FA, is obvious, and Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) is probably the most notable as a media adaptation. There's a few other likely items hanging out in Category:Dungeons & Dragons. The Order of the Stick would probably work, although a lot of other similar strips might not (general fantasy would be out, it's gotta be D&D related). Mazes and Monsters is iffy, because I don't think D&D is mentioned by name (Fry, didn't you see the after-school special!) as that was about RPGs in general, and probably didn't mention D&D by name to avoid a lawsuit. Category:Dungeons & Dragons video games would possibly be a child category, so no need to lump them all in there. He Poos Clouds is an interesting one. ;) You also have things like Wishmaster (album), and we could possibly put the band Kyuss in the category but I wouldn't add them to the D&D project.
So, I don't know, just thinking out loud, let me know what you think. BOZ ( talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that Drizzt Do'Urden is GA, it's no longer an example for C Class. Monster Manual is now C Class, not B Class, and Ravenloft is not actually A Class. One could either use the old versions of the articles when they were added (for example Drizzt Do'Urden and Monster Manual) or choose new ones. I'm for the latter. Hekerui ( talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What's up with this? :) 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Awesome index. Used it to spruce up Kim Mohan already. 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the peer reviews have just about run their course. Should we shoot for A-class? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A-class isn't going anywhere. Should we try FAC? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 07:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! It's a Featured Article now. :) Excellent work, everyone! BOZ ( talk) 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this article promoted to featured article status. I know what a tough slog that can be. One of these days I'll actually finish up the game. :-) RJH ( talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's just about finished. Could someone take a look at it and fix any glaring problems? The only main thing I couldn't include was an explanation of the "silver shards" in Plot. I played the game, but it was a few years ago and I've forgotten their significance. Also, I think Gameplay is adequate, but it may need attention from a D&D expert. Finally, feel free to remove the cleanup tags at the top of the article if you feel they are no longer required. — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the lead needs expansion (when doesn't it?). I don't see summaries of the gameplay and devolopment sections. Looks plenty good for a GA nom. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Great work, all, it's a GA now. :) BOZ ( talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd bring this article to the project's attention. It's a newly created article, and as it stands now, the article is pretty much deletion fodder, but if notoriety equals notability there may be something to salvage there. McJeff ( talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. It looks like " Worst roleplaying game ever written" has already been Prod'd as a PoV essay.— RJH ( talk)
Dumb D&D monsters at Cracked.com. I asked at RS/N. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Have a look and see what I've done with the Cloaker. When I started adding publication histories to various "fictional element" articles last year, this is an example of what I was trying to get to. I was doing this on Drow, but it got pretty lengthly do I decided to see what I could do on a smaller, less important creature (I will get back to the Drow, I promise). This format organizes the information by publication history. It keeps the text more-or-less out-of-universe by reminding the reader that "this is a game, it comes from this book", etc. It reduces, or completely eliminates original research by going straight to the text and reporting only what one sees there. It also keeps an article from being "edition specific" by giving equal airtime to all editions and presenting them in order rather than trying to mish-mosh them together; note that I even removed "Aberration" from the lead as this is a 3E-only thing. Two things it doesn't do are fixing the primary source issue, and therefore the notability issue; however, I figure if we're going to keep any of these "fictional element" articles around at all, we might as well make them as wiki-friendly as we possibly can, and then add any secondary sources as we find them.
If you want to help out in any way, be my guest. There are, well, hundreds of articles out there to pick from. :) There are even redirected articles that could be uncovered; for example, I decided to work on Cloaker in the first place because it had been redirected, and it's not the only such article I've got in mind. I plan to do this on every "fictional element" D&D article worth keeping, sooner or later, until I'm dead or burn out completely. :) I know I probably got overlong and wordy with this one, and I can't promise I won't do the same in the future, so feel free to trim out anything that does not add to the understanding of what the subject is and how it functions within the game - I won't be offended. :)
Let me know what you think before I start going hog wild on other articles, eh? BOZ ( talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Added much to Bullywug. :) Don't have Dungeon #140, unfortunately. Next up, Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ ( talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, would you say the mimic has undergone a significant improvement from how it was a month ago? :) Yeesh, that version said way more about other games the mimic has appeared in, rather than how it has appeared in D&D! BOZ ( talk) 04:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Got the barghest; thinking of taking the yochlol next. :) BOZ ( talk) 01:34, 21 June 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Do we have it? Should we turn it on? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created a task force for D&D video games under WP:VG. If you're interested, head over and sign up. — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Talk:Dice/GA1. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Having just redirected (without merging) Barghest (Dungeons & Dragons) after is was prodded, I was wondering if we should more firmly establish what Redirect-Class is in the project. I think that it has been discussed before that this class could be used for all D&D-related articles which are redirected without being merged. I feel that this would be a good way to track such articles so that they can be merged at a later date. If there is consensus for this, then, I'll go through Category:Redirect-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles and properly reassess those which were merged to Merge-Class and delete those which have no non-redirect history under G6, linking to the discussion. Then we'd know what hasn't been merged. Your thoughts? – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
How does that sound for a category? I'm thinking stuff like Futurama: Bender's Game, which I just recently added to the project. It would need some defining. For example, Bender's Game mentions the game's name several times, shows characters playing D&D sessions in a few different scenes, and the entire plot involving Bender stems directly from his involement in D&D. Pretty solid case. :)
I'd say Anthology of Interest I (the one with Gygax in it) would not be an article for the D&D project. While D&D is mentioned, and Gygax is in there, D&D is more of a gag than anything integral to the plot, unlike Bender's Game.
To be included, I'd say something has to have a source stating that D&D inspired the product directly. Dungeons & Dragons (album), an FA, is obvious, and Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) is probably the most notable as a media adaptation. There's a few other likely items hanging out in Category:Dungeons & Dragons. The Order of the Stick would probably work, although a lot of other similar strips might not (general fantasy would be out, it's gotta be D&D related). Mazes and Monsters is iffy, because I don't think D&D is mentioned by name (Fry, didn't you see the after-school special!) as that was about RPGs in general, and probably didn't mention D&D by name to avoid a lawsuit. Category:Dungeons & Dragons video games would possibly be a child category, so no need to lump them all in there. He Poos Clouds is an interesting one. ;) You also have things like Wishmaster (album), and we could possibly put the band Kyuss in the category but I wouldn't add them to the D&D project.
So, I don't know, just thinking out loud, let me know what you think. BOZ ( talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that Drizzt Do'Urden is GA, it's no longer an example for C Class. Monster Manual is now C Class, not B Class, and Ravenloft is not actually A Class. One could either use the old versions of the articles when they were added (for example Drizzt Do'Urden and Monster Manual) or choose new ones. I'm for the latter. Hekerui ( talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What's up with this? :) 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Awesome index. Used it to spruce up Kim Mohan already. 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the peer reviews have just about run their course. Should we shoot for A-class? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A-class isn't going anywhere. Should we try FAC? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 07:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! It's a Featured Article now. :) Excellent work, everyone! BOZ ( talk) 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this article promoted to featured article status. I know what a tough slog that can be. One of these days I'll actually finish up the game. :-) RJH ( talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's just about finished. Could someone take a look at it and fix any glaring problems? The only main thing I couldn't include was an explanation of the "silver shards" in Plot. I played the game, but it was a few years ago and I've forgotten their significance. Also, I think Gameplay is adequate, but it may need attention from a D&D expert. Finally, feel free to remove the cleanup tags at the top of the article if you feel they are no longer required. — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the lead needs expansion (when doesn't it?). I don't see summaries of the gameplay and devolopment sections. Looks plenty good for a GA nom. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Great work, all, it's a GA now. :) BOZ ( talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd bring this article to the project's attention. It's a newly created article, and as it stands now, the article is pretty much deletion fodder, but if notoriety equals notability there may be something to salvage there. McJeff ( talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. It looks like " Worst roleplaying game ever written" has already been Prod'd as a PoV essay.— RJH ( talk)
Dumb D&D monsters at Cracked.com. I asked at RS/N. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Have a look and see what I've done with the Cloaker. When I started adding publication histories to various "fictional element" articles last year, this is an example of what I was trying to get to. I was doing this on Drow, but it got pretty lengthly do I decided to see what I could do on a smaller, less important creature (I will get back to the Drow, I promise). This format organizes the information by publication history. It keeps the text more-or-less out-of-universe by reminding the reader that "this is a game, it comes from this book", etc. It reduces, or completely eliminates original research by going straight to the text and reporting only what one sees there. It also keeps an article from being "edition specific" by giving equal airtime to all editions and presenting them in order rather than trying to mish-mosh them together; note that I even removed "Aberration" from the lead as this is a 3E-only thing. Two things it doesn't do are fixing the primary source issue, and therefore the notability issue; however, I figure if we're going to keep any of these "fictional element" articles around at all, we might as well make them as wiki-friendly as we possibly can, and then add any secondary sources as we find them.
If you want to help out in any way, be my guest. There are, well, hundreds of articles out there to pick from. :) There are even redirected articles that could be uncovered; for example, I decided to work on Cloaker in the first place because it had been redirected, and it's not the only such article I've got in mind. I plan to do this on every "fictional element" D&D article worth keeping, sooner or later, until I'm dead or burn out completely. :) I know I probably got overlong and wordy with this one, and I can't promise I won't do the same in the future, so feel free to trim out anything that does not add to the understanding of what the subject is and how it functions within the game - I won't be offended. :)
Let me know what you think before I start going hog wild on other articles, eh? BOZ ( talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Added much to Bullywug. :) Don't have Dungeon #140, unfortunately. Next up, Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ ( talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, would you say the mimic has undergone a significant improvement from how it was a month ago? :) Yeesh, that version said way more about other games the mimic has appeared in, rather than how it has appeared in D&D! BOZ ( talk) 04:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Got the barghest; thinking of taking the yochlol next. :) BOZ ( talk) 01:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)