Talk:Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks

This redirect is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

Top

This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been marked as needing its references improved. Please rewrite according to the citation guidelines. The references department may be able to help.

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

Link

Why does the "Defenders of the Faith" link to an album instead of the book it's talking about???

Someone didn't check the link. It's since been fixed. --StarGeek 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title, and books merge

The name "manuals" is weird. I'm not certain if that has the right connotation; a manual has a very mechanics flavor, while the D&D sourcebooks often add at least a little setting (although not as much White Wolf or many other competitors, certainly). Maybe the simpler Dungeons & Dragons books would be better? Only problem would be separating out the "Novels licensed with a D&D property" vs. "sourcebooks for the game." A link and explanation to a future List of Dungeons & Dragons novels would be reasonable for clearing that up.

Secondly... I think that many of the individual articles on the books are, hmm, how to say this, bad. Some are okay and salvageable, but many articles don't exist or else are hideously stubby (a la Complete Mage). Furthermore, I don't see much potential for these articles' size, at least without massively ripping off the copyright, and that's ignoring the pragmatic concerns that these articles don't seem to be getting much attention. So... would there be any opposition to further listification, perhaps linked to from this page? I'm thinking something like List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition books, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition books, and so on. The individual book articles could be merged into it, with each getting a paragraph or two to explain what the book was about and did along with utilitarian info on the book (ISBN, authors, etc.). It seems this has already been done for some of the campaign-setting specific books (the incomplete List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks article, for example). SnowFire 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dietiesanddemigodscover.jpg

The image Image:Dietiesanddemigodscover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List

Does anyone else think that this article should be reworked so that it's not as much a list as a history of the rulebooks and overview of the "core" books, including books like Manual of the Planes and Fiend Folio? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]