Talk:Wand of Orcus

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Wand of Orcus

I'm not sure that we need to split off all the artifacts, as I think a standalone article on the Wand of Orcus is both sufficent and preferrable. I will also be taking a portion of the current Publication history with when we split that off; in fact, any time I mention where game stats are listed, you can probably figure that we have stats for the wand there, too, so I may indeed add more information.

That said, I am wondering how we will break the current writeup up into sections. Would it be descriptions of the wand by editions, by source, or what do you think? BOZ (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to just splitting off the Wand. I think the best thing is to divide it by attributes like appearance, powers, history, etc., and then collect the sources addressing each of those. For example, all of the sources give pretty much the same description of what it looks like, so it is repetitive to have that information under several different sections. Just say that it's a three-foot rod topped with a skull and point to all the references that agree with that description, and then note if any specific source adds other descriptive information. bd2412 T 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the longest and most interesting parts would be its depiction in adventures - for example, no less than two published adventurers required the PCs to retrieve the Wand! Great quest item. :)

I'm just about done with all the 3.5 stuff now, and when I get through the 4E stuff (that should take a while) then I think we will have a better picture of what material we have to work with. BOZ (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have organized the section on the wand somewhat in accordance with the above proposition. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]