Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Are Paizo's Dragon and Dungeon magazines secondary?

This really needs to be decided... obviously when they were published by TSR, Dragon and Dungeon were primary sources and they should be treated that way here. Paizo's issues are kind of in a gray area... personally, I think that they can be considered secondary. To my knowledge, it was primarily Paizo who decided on the content of each issue, and Wizards just had to give them the "Okay" to make sure that there weren't major problems like continuity errors. I could be completely wrong, of course, but Paizo seems to be one step removed from a "primary" source, so calling it secondary could work. Now it isn't an ideal secondary source, but it's something. What are your thoughts on this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. This might be argued a bit. FWIW, the ruling on sourcing is a guideline not policy, and I am happy to use primary sources in some cases of embellishing an article, (i.e. just becaue a sentence is reffed by a primary source is no need to remove it, but the secondaries are important for notability). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
However, there are some articles during Paizo's tenure that subsequently made it to a Wizards D&D accessory book, such as the synad psionic race and erudite psionic class making it to Complete Psionic. So can we distinguish which articles have the "imprimatur" of Wizards? Ravin' Ray (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
WotC reviewed all of the articles, I think... but Paizo really selected them from the various submissions and sent them through their editorial processes, etc., although WotC still had license to use the material. I think. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead for the main Dungeons & Dragons article

Curious to hear what opinion others have about this and this regarding the lead on the main Dungeons & Dragons article. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Will this change what we've got set up with you currently? BOZ (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dungeon and Dragon magazines, free to good home

I have a pile of these that I'd like to get rid of, but I'd like them to go to someone who wants them if possible, and I figure someone here could use them for sources and such. I will list them here as I locate them (I'm in the middle of moving, so it may take a bit before I get them all listed). If you are interested, they are yours for only shipping. Some of them may also include maps and such that originally came with them.

Dungeon: issues 105, 118
Dragon: issues 320, 323, 327

Please let me know if you want them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I only use the computer versions of them. Someone else may want them, though. It's very cool of you to make the offer. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - FAC time!

Peregrine Fisher has nominated Expedition to the Barrier Peaks for FAC. :) Good luck - I'll help when/where I can! BOZ (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quickie peer review

Hey cool, check out what I found! :) It's not comprehensive, but it gives you a lot of hints as to what style guidelines and such an article should be following, and whether the article does or not. Will also remind you if the lead is too short, if you forgot an image or infobox, etc. It's a good tool to use if you're going for GA on something, and definitely at FA because those guys are really picky about stuff like that. :) BOZ (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's adapted from this script which I used for a while now. I actually had that run over the Planescape: Torment article during the FA and used to it edit some project articles nominated GA. I thought you knew it, otherwise I would have mentioned it, it's pretty cool. Hekerui (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool! Only problem seems to be that it doesn't like ampersands, even hardcoded ones (querying Ratchet & Clank just returned Ratchet). Otherwise, this looks like a great tool! Thanks for mentioning it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about it, you guys must know it, it's the automated peer review script of WP:PR. Not to harp on that or anything heh Anyway, the application is better because it gives out a format not just the peerreviewer text. Hekerui (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ayup, kind of figured that out. :) But with this tool, the automated peer review at WP:PR won't find as much! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And who says that's a bad thing? :) BOZ (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Adventure vs. Module

In the module GAs I've worked on, I haven't come up with a consistent way to describe the thing. I don't really care either way, but it's kinda come up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Expedition to the Barrier Peaks/archive1, and I'd like help deciding what's best. Some points: in the old days they were modules. I guess they're called adventures now. Our list of them uses modules. We should use whatever the common name is, but I'm not sure which is more common. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I look at it this way. I can't say what is the more common term. You and I, and anyone who's played the game for at least 15 years or so knows what a "module" is; Joe on the street would more or less understand what you meant if you said "adventure" (which is probably why WotC started calling them that). As I work on articles, I've been starting to refer to them as "adventure modules". BOZ (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, an "adventure" is any storyline that the GM uses, either homebrew or prepackaged. A module is a 1E-2E prepublished adventure. An adventure module is a 3E-4E prepackaged adventure. Does that all make any sense? :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, "adventure module" was what I wanted. Thanks. I knew there had to be a good thing to call them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Expedition to the Barrier Peaks/archive1

Does anyone know the page from Schick? I thought we were able to search that with google books, but a preview wasn't available. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not I. That one's on top of my "get it when you get some money" list, but that may be a long time coming! Do you know who added the cite in the first place? Maybe Casliber had that? BOZ (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The module entry is on page 113 of L. Schick (1991). Note that if you have an Amazon account, they allow you to search the book.—RJH (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I already added the page number. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that after I'd already posted a response here. So it goes.—RJH (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to the editors for bringing this article up to FA worthiness. I know it's pretty difficult trying to satisfy the need for references on these topics, so well done! Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

I think Expedition to the Barrie Peaks is going to make it, and it's got me thinking about doing another. Ravenloft is obviously a good candidate. I think originally it was User:Waza's baby (it's too bad he's not around anymore. He and I were the original guys who started doing modules, I think.), but I can see there have been a lot of chefs in the kitchen since then. I'll probably be expanding stuff (like reception) much more than removing stuff, but I'd like to rearrange it into the standard Plot, Publication history (probably with subsections), Reception format we've been using on other modules. Hopefully this is OK with everyone. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm the one who will have questions. ;-) I'm thinking about taking out the extra infoboxes. And, maybe putting any source that's only used once and currently appears in the References section only in the Notes section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Third time's the charm? :) Hey, you got Expedition up to a point where several people are willing to support it for FA, so I say "Hell yeah" on just about anything you want to do. ;) Removing the extra text makes the infoboxes look clunky, so yeah if you could do something about that it would be good. :)

If you don't mind the hard work, I'll assist when and where I can. I was hoping for more hands on Pool of Radiance, but going for more FA's on module articles helps out the WikiProject even more. :) A few of our current GA's have definite FA potential, particularly Against the Giants, Dragons of Despair (although somehow we passed without a Reception section!), and Tomb of Horrors.

Another option is to take more of them to GA. Isle of Dread is pretty built up, but needs a bigger Reception section. Castle Amber, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Palace of the Silver Princess, Scourge of the Slave Lords, The Keep on the Borderlands, The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, and The Temple of Elemental Evil could also make it with some work.

Dungeonland, In Search of the Unknown, The Secret of Bone Hill, The Ghost Tower of Inverness, The Assassin's Knot, The Lost City, Against the Cult of the Reptile God, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Desert of Desolation are currently under-developed but have potential. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have a lot with potential to be FA and especially GA, which is sweet. I'd like to get a couple more FAs (probably Ravenloft and Against the Giants will be easiest) to even things out, but in the long run GA protects against deletion so it's important. Sorry about not doing much on Pool of Radiance. I didn't play D&D video games as a kid, and they don't give me the same feeling of nostalgia. ;-) The actual modules I owned as a kid were Barrier Peaks, Isle of Dread, and Keep on the Borderlands, so I may give them some extra lovin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The ones that have been around the longest will often have some out-of-universe commentary. Doing the Giant'd be good. I DM'ed them :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Who hasn't?  ;) I don't DM a whole lot, and even I have made it through G1 at least. :) BOZ (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Me. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

TFA

Can we get Barrier Peaks on the front page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We can try, but it may not be easy. It won't be able to get any TFA points since it doesn't qualify for anything at the moment. We can nominate it and try to slip it by in a "slow" period? :) BOZ (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It was released in 1980 I think, which could be a 30 year anniversary next month. There may be multiple ISBNs, since the one we're using links to 1981, but the article says 1980, and I think there was a version from then. I've had trouble finding ISBNs for old versions of modules before. Trying to slip it in sounds good, though. You know best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You kind of have to keep an eye on this page are wait for there to be fewer than five requests (you can't add one when there are five, unless you can beat the points on the lowest one). If you can somehow pin down the exact date (1980 ain't gonna cut it), then that would give you a point if you request it for that date. If you've never had an article you worked on get on TFA that's a point, and RPG materials are definitely under-represented, so that might be 2 points you could squeak by with. I say, keep an eye on that page, and as soon as Aug 24 is removed then go ahead and pick a random date and nominate it and we'll see what happens. :) I'm 2 for 4 IIRC at TFA, by the way. :) BOZ (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Watchlisted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What about July 1980?[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that Planescape: Torment is a more likely candidate this year, but it wouldn't hurt to try both! With Peaks we'd want to wait another year or so anyway for the 30th anniversary. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If we can find an RS for July 1980, that would be a step in the right direction for getting it up there. We can always try it now and see what happens; the worst likely result is "no, try again in 2010. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it get two points for "Main page representation A similar article has not been featured on the main page"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Greyhawk deities versus Greyhawk deities

I have merged these two pages, redirecting the list to the full article, which amalgamates the two pages by incorporating the lists into an article about the development of Greyhawk deities. The material was removed from my ongoing and ever lengthening wiki on World of Greyhawk (on my talk page); my wiki can now simply refer to material on deities in the new article, thereby shortening it.Guinness323 (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! 67.175.176.178 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wired references

Since it seems that some of the references to Wired.com have disappeared (they are now returning 404 errors), I have archived the rest of the relevant ones and done what I could to locate the content of the error-returning ones.

Ayup, I found ToH! Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Ravenloft was reviewed. :/ –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I found that stuff that webcitation.org can't deal with (stuff only left in Google cache) can still be saved quite nicely with freezepage.com Hekerui (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh... okay, thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Frickin awesome work, Dril. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ravenloft (module)/archive3

It's live. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

What do you guys think about merging D1-2 with D3? While I think a GA could be made for both, I think a combined article could probably make FA easier. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe... I know D1-2 was re-released in a combined module, which is probably why it was merged in the first place, but I think D3 has always been standalone. Other than convenience, do you have a good rationale why it should be merged in with the other two? I think maybe I have seen D1-3 referred to as the "Descent" series before, but I'd like to be more certain of that before merging. BOZ (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The three were initially separate, before D1 and 2 were combined, but then they all were for GDQ1-7. I'd veer towards merging, given we have Ravenloft and Ravenloft II modules in one article. My rationale would be they were a coherent series that was closely linked (the three were successive encounters deep underground and meant to be played successively). The D series were not much more substantial than the very slim G modules...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gen Con?

Anyone going to Indy this year?  :) We finally made late hotel reservations last night - don't know how we did it (late cancellation I assume?) but we found a $50 room just three minutes away from the convention center! I'll be there all day pretty much; going to see if I can bring the laptop so I'm not too far away from here on downtimes, but if not I'm sure you all can live without me for a day and a half. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a camera, if you can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt I'll get any good pics, but we'll see. :) BOZ (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting ready to go, see you guys later! :) Planning to bring the laptop, but may or may not be on. BOZ (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back - looks like I didn't miss anything. ;) BOZ (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope; it's been pretty dull around here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Went to GenCon for the first time since the 3e launch. (First GenCon I went to was at Parkside). It's huger than huge now! Hobit (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Virus from Dragonlance ref

Could you check if it's just my computer? Look at the Dragonlance article history for details. Also, see Talk:Dragonlance#Virus. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

More Good articles

So what should we work on next? Personally, I think that Planescape: Torment shouldn't be too hard, Greyhawk and Dragonlance would probably be good ideas, and Neverwinter Nights 2 is our second-most popular article, so that would probably be worthwhile. Thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad that Drizzt and the main D&D page showed up so high. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms look pretty crucial to me. They don't super entice me, but video game articles (like Neverwinter Nights 2) are probably the most likely to reach FA status. On a sidenote, I did a (very) little bit of copyediting on Ravenloft (module), and when I was doing it, it didn't seem to be organized very well. The sections on production/publication history, plot, and reception seemed to be mixed together. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Greyhawk and Dragonlance are very important articles, and really need to be at the same level as the GA Forgotten Realms. They will both require some work, especially Greyhawk. The video game articles Planescape: Torment and Neverwinter Nights 2 would be a good idea; I'm not familiar with the games, but if we can get someone who is to help out, then we could take them pretty far.
Previously, I had advocated improving our B-class articles to GA; in the last couple of months, the majority of them have been either demoted due to lack of actual quality, or successfully promoted to GA. Since there are only 8 left (minus The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, which has been nominated but is awaiting a review), let me have a look at each of them:
  • Against the Giants and Isle of Dread - well, we've been pretty successful with modules so far...
  • Dungeons & Dragons controversies - Drilnoth has mentioned previously about woring on this one. We need good sources, but it could be done with some work.
  • Gen Con - tried this one before, see the previous GA review if you think we should give it another go
  • Illithid - one of the more likely monster articles to succeed, but we need to find some good out-of-universe info first
  • Kender - this one is dead to me. ;)
  • Minsc - Kung Fu Man was working on this one, and if he thinks it's more or less ready, I'd like to give it a try.

BOZ (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I pretty much agree with BOZ's assessment. So, what'll it be? I think that Dragonlance or one of the computer games would be good (I haven't played the games either, but think that we can probably still get them to GA, even if not FA, without someone who's really played them). Alternatively, if you want a challenge, working on a more in-universe article like Faerun might work. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Faerûn would certainly be possible, as it already has some independent refs, but it would definitely be a challenge. Dragonlance is fairly well done, but poorly sourced; I think I would be most comfortable working on that one. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I did some work on Dragonlance. Not entirely sure where to go next. Right now it's mostly concept and creation/reception, a listing of the ages of Krynn, a books list, a campaign setting section, and in other media. I just started adding a characters section. I was thinking about dropping pretty much all of Heroes of the Lance in, but it might get kinda big. I think the ages of Krynn should be cut down a bunch, maybe one section with two paragraphs (we've already got a timeline article). I'm not sure, because my specialty is searching the web (and old magazines) for secondary sources, and it's starting to need primary source info. The only way I know where to get that, is other wiki pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Great work! I'll probably work on trimming/reformatting the in-universe things soon, and may also work on other sections. If you can find more secondary sources, that wouldn't hurt, and I'll look more in-universe stuff. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Your specialty is invaluable, PF. :) I agree on collapsing the History of Krynn section (and removing the headers); I had to do a lot of the same thing on Spider-Man in cases where parts had been split off from the main article and were still discussed in too much detail on the parent - let the split article do the talking, and have the parent give a brief summary. Go ahead and build up the Characters section somewhat; the main characters are a key component to the setting and need some love, but like you say don't go overboard. We probably need a reception setting, I think. With the Forgotten Realms GA, I reorganized it along the lines of the D&D game because that seemed appropriate; however, this world is fairly independent of the RPG and shoehorning it that way wouldn't do the setting justice. The History and influence section seems unusually out of order and should be corrected. BOZ (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So, if this one passes , would Greyhawk be good as a next goal? Maybe we can try to get all of the settings up to GA-Class. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably so. I have this 30 years of D&D books that should have a lot of info on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure sources aplenty exist for Greyhawk, it's just a matter of getting them in there. :) That one, right now, is in an even worse state than Dragonlance was - virtually nothing in terms of independent sourcing. BOZ (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That just makes it more of a challenge. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely with RJHall. BOZ (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an infobox for the various campaign settings. Anyone know of a good one? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I started a crappy one at Template:Infobox campaign setting. It's goind to need work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice start! I'll try and put some more work into it over the next few days. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Next?

I've nominated Dragonlance at WP:GAN. So, is there consensus to work on Greyhawk next, or would something else (like Neverwinter Nights 2) make more sense first? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this; we get to work on Greyhawk, and I will try to solicit help at the VG project for NWN2 and P:Torment? :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We also have a possible good topic with the S series modules. Right now it's set up for FL, I think. I think they may have a rule of at least 10 items, now, or at least would frown on a four item list. Not super sure. If so, it could easily be made into a GA. I'd prefer to do an FL, since I've never done one, and they're criteria seems pretty lax, but another GA would be fine to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty much neutral on whether it is FL or GA... I agree that FL could be kind of tough (and lame, with a four-five item list), so I can try and focus my efforts on getting it into article form and GA. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't S–series Dungeons & Dragons modules have more content at one point? BOZ (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Kind of. :) I've been trying to figure out the best way to display the information, so things have just changed over time. Obviously, though, the current method is not the best way. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ten is the minimum, so it will have to be a GA I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Greyhawk, I started some discussion here. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not familiar with those 2 games, but I'd start by checking for reviews and creation info with these sources first.じんない 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Neverwinter Nights 2 and Planescape: Torment, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes those are the 2 games.じんない 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool, we are also discussing this topic below. BOZ (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving on

OK, looks like all of the items in Drilnoth's first paragraph have been addressed: Planescape: Torment is a GA, Dragonlance is a GA nom, Greyhawk is on hold until we can find more sources, and Neverwinter Nights 2 is being worked on presumably.

So then, what next? I brought up a few items that might be good to work on two posts down. Would we want to consider working on any of those? If we're not sick of modules, I think Against the Giants and Isle of Dread are very logcial choices. Dungeons & Dragons controversies and Gen Con would take some work to get sourced properly, but would also be worthwhile. If these are not the ones we want to go with next, I can look through the C-class articles for worthy candidates. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be up to those, but I still haven't gotten to really put any effort into NWN2. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
NWN2 looks like a crazy amount of work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yah, maybe it would be better to do something else. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely concur that getting NWN2 to GA would be a whole lot of work. However, why not put some work into improving the article anyway, to get it that much closer for the next guy who wants to try for GA (who may well be you revisiting it in the future), like Peregrine did with Greyhawk. :) That said, when you've gone as far as you're willing to go there, check out my VG history for some ideas on other articles we might have an easier time with, and think about some good ol' pen-n-paper topics that look like more reasonable goals. :) BOZ (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good... I'll probably work on some more of the pen & paper-related articles after this. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I just took a stab at Against the Giants, and it's pretty close to being ready. I wrote the plot summaries for a couple of years ago, so the part that I find the hardest is pretty much done, although maybe it's a bit long. I wrote them for individual module articles, then merged them without culling anything. The reception section will be pretty fat, even though there are two reviews in old mags that I don't think are possible to find. What would be great is if we could find some old Gygax thoughts from Dragon magazine (if they exist). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey BOZ, did you get to ask GG questions? Too bad he passed, we could have asked for out of universe info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a big reception section, unless we're talking just plain overbalanced. :) (Often enough, they're not long enough!) Yeah, if Gary were still around there's no doubt he would want to help up improve Wikipedia articles. Very friendly guy; I did have some interactions with him on ENWorld and particularly those Q&A threads. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Good work so far on Against the Giants; do you think it's ready for a nom, or does it need more work? BOZ (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that it's ready... the plot might be a bit long yet, but everything else looks good to me (just a brief lookover, though). –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I finished some work on the lead for Against the Giants, and it's time to go to bed now. :) If you want to continue with modules, it might be nice to get a BD&D module or two going. In particular, The Keep on the Borderlands, Castle Amber, Isle of Dread, and The Lost City might be worth working on, and have plot summaries and reception sections started. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth mentioned about working on more fictional element articles. I'd say any characters who've been major figures in novels may have potential, though likely none as much as Drizzt. Elminster, Raistlin Majere, and Strahd von Zarovich probably have the most potential. Other characters who are rated as C-class include Artemis Entreri, Elaith Craulnober, Goldmoon (delisted GA), Jarlaxle, Kelemvor Lyonsbane, Lolth, Riverwind (delisted GA), and Sturm Brightblade, all of which have some GA+ potential if we can find the sources. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that it might actually be a better idea to work on a non-character element, and see if its possible. Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) probably has the most promise, because of Drizzt's populartiy. If not something like that, I could help with most any of the Forgotten Realms characters. I don't know about Dragonlance and Greyhawk characters as much, but I could still pitch in with what I can do. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, drow would be a good choice, and probably the best choice among the traditional "monsters". Again, it's about finding the sources. The history is clear enough: Gygax created them, mentioned them in the Monster Manual, fleshed them out throughout the Queen of the Spiders storyline, got them officially printed in the Fiend Folio, gave them PC stats in Unearthed Arcana, and their popularity took off once Drizzt became a fan favorite. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
So, it's a plan? I can try to start work on it soon. (Really!) –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I trust you. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Against the Giants is now a GA! I'd like to start on Dave Arneson soon. It's looking pretty decent already. I've been pretty preoccupied with IRL stuff lately, so I will get into it when I can. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Great work there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Not from me, I've been slacking badly. ;) I'll see how things improve for me once they settle down over here. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well then, great work Peregrine Fisher! :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Neverwinter Nights 2‎ after working on the lead a bit. :) BOZ (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ready to have a look at Dave Arneson? :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I put some work into it; let me know what you think. I think we can nominate this one. It still needs some citations here and there, but we can work on that as we go. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Really excellent! A few months ago I never thought NWN2 would be a GA so soon. What's next? :) BOZ (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) was going to be the next focus, but I'm flexible. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Still working on that one; in fact, I'm going to do a little momentarily. :) Anything else we should get working on? BOZ (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think that if Storm of Zehir and Arneson's GA reviews start soon we'll have our hands full. We could have a go at getting another FA (IYKWIMAITYD), or some other "element of fiction"-type article. Maybe Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)? There's also more VG articles which shouldn't be too hard. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Third time is the charm for Ravenloft? ;) Yeah, I'm fine with waiting a bit longer for those two GAs before nominating another, as those have been waiting for a while and should come due before much longer. I just tossed a bunch of work on the drow article and have some more to go, but if you want to have a go at the Dragons article we can see what we can do. :) BOZ (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Arneson's article is now at GA review. :) BOZ (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Seems to mostly just be citation issues. I'll do what I can... regardless, keep in mind that many of the obituaries basically came straight from the article here and so can't really be used as sources. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Great work, everyone who helped! :) Dave Arneson has now joined Gary Gygax in the GA pantheon. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! So what next? I'm thinking NWN2:MotB... it needs some work, but I think that MoW should be a GA within another month or so so then that would be all that's left for a Good Topic. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Makes enough sense to me. :) BOZ (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2 series

Hey there. :) Now that we have Neverwinter Nights 2 as a GA, and Storm of Zehir up at review, time to look at what is "next" if we're looking at this as a "good topic". I'll make a note that if you look at the article hits page for the D&D project, I'll point out that Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer and Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate are even higher up on the "popularity list" than Storm of Zehir. :) BOZ (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that Planescape: Torment is a Featured Article, ready to get going on these? :) BOZ (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Savras for GA?

I think Savras has some context now. Perhaps someone could read over the article and see if it's ready? I haven't written an article on fiction so far. Thanks! And what topic would this be in? Hekerui (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see it pass, I don't think that this would make it in its current state. It looks like all of the sources are primary (published by either TSR or WotC), and it still has too much in-universe information compared to real-world content. If just those could be fixed it could stand a good chance at GAN. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
True. I see it doesn't appear on this neat Article hits list either. Hekerui (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It is one of the more obscure topics. Although that generally means that it won't be as easy to get to GA status, doing so would be a big boost for the project... having an article on such a minor character at such a level. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Savras is much better, but has the same problems as mentioned below for Cloaker. Nearly all D&D "fictional element" articles lack the sort of third-party sourcing that would be necessary to get them to GA, which is why so many of them have also been targeted for deletion, or merged somewhere else as a compromise. This, however, doesn't mean we can't fix up the content (see my other arguments below) such as Hekerui did so well with Savras. Not appearing on the article hits page shouldn't be an issue, although that page can be seen as an indicator of a subject's popularity. :) BOZ (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance

I've been working on Pool of Radiance - what do you think? :) I'm aiming for a GA... BOZ (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokes, that one takes me way, way back. Guess I'm showing my age... ;-) I'd say probably there are a few paragraphs where you are going to need more cites. I'm also curious why it lists Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor as the sequel after saying the sequel was Curse of the Azure Bonds? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
'Cause someone else wrote it that way? :) Maybe if we can find a source that talks about the relationship of that game to the original, we'll have a better term - remake, spiritual successor, just a game with the same name? :) The description in that article doesn't sound anything like that of the original, so not sure how it would be a sequel at all. And yes, this takes me way way back as well! 20 years ago, in fact. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well there is this reference, which lists it only as a sequel to the series of gold box games. Swords & Circuitry (2001:p. 371) lists it as a "follow-up" game to the original 'Pool of Radiance'. The naming sounds mostly like marketing leechcraft. :) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I nominated it for peer review. :) Thanks everyone for all the help so far - this one has been a goal of mine for a while. :) BOZ (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally nominated the thing for Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. I'm sure it will make it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey check it out, I just found this randomly: User:SharkD/Sandbox/Gold Box gameplay - this was a userfied deleted article. If you would be interested in helping him work on it, I guess you could let him know! BOZ (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! We have GA. :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons/Archive_23&oldid=1046732185"