Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Dungeons and Dragons articles biased.

I have been reading through many articles about D&D lately and they seem to all be focused on the newest edition. I have made my concenrs on the D&D talk page about how the articles primarily speak of 3rd/d20 system edition seeming more like a commercial for the latest in-print version of the game rather than neutral content about the games that have gone under the name Dungeongs and Dragons in general. They seem to favor the d20 system variant either because it is allowed by the OGL/SRD for the system, or the other edition are not legally reproducible under that same license. Is this the reason? Most articles say they are for the 3rd edition rules, but I have a hard time finding anything about rules to previous editions. While they may not be legal to reprint their rules in as must informatino that has been provided for 3rd edition, does that mean the whole of D&D articles should only contain the latest edition and ignore the previous editions of the game? I use the term editions lightly as each edition was in fact a new game in and of itself with just the basics of play. The articles would seem to suggest that all D&D is player under the same rules, while they are only played under the same concept as every other RPG. Most of the fictional characters, worlds, cities, magic, etc names are reused through these editions but they are not totally compatible with each other. Also each game bred its own style of game play from its ruleset. The only article, that I have found; that really touches on the differences and the older editions is the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article. All others appear to pertain only to the lastest edition as though it were the only thing considered to be D&D, and only acceptible method for playing the game. This will greatly mislead people into propoganda that should they be interested in playing; all the evidence provided shows that only the new game exists and previous editions have been neglected by all to use only the newest version. This is not true. What could be done within the limits of legallity to make the D&D related articles show more fact and look less like an advertisement for the newest edition of the game? shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much legal issues, as much as it is a classic case of systemic bias. A lot of the editors here have either discovered D&D at 3.0+, or migrated to it. There isn't many people anymore who still play older editions. Now, I'm all for slaying systemic bias dragons as much as the next guy, let's find some decent reliable sources and write some good articles about older editions. --Roninbk t c e # 07:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a known bias in wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Recentism. I'm also a little concerned about the D&D/not-D&D split in articles. Is wikipedia heavily biased in favour of D&D, or does the D&D-heaviness reflect real-world market share? I don't know, and I don't know where to look. Percy Snoodle 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

*There isn't many people anymore who still play older editions.

  • Well that ain't true! What kind of sources would you consider reliable? http://www.kcrew.org/~shadzar/dnd/c/index.html this is part of my collection that I have catalogued when trying to make sure I didn't buy too many extras on eBay. Would those books themselves count as reliable resources? Also how would correcting or creating new articles for D&D work? It was suggested that the D&D article to be split into its own editions. Maybe someone from here could suggest ways to improve it there to better remove the systemic bias you speak of, and come up with a direction of creating new articles that comply with the RPG Wikiproject? PercyS: What do you mean by D&D/not-D&D split in articles?shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is, most RPGs have (and deserve) only one article, whereas there are a great many articles about D&D - hundreds of them. While I'd be mad to claim that D&D isn't notable, and I'm fairly happy that the campaign settings are notable, I'm not sure that all of the details deserve their own articles, for example, any of the individual character classes; I certainly can't think of any notability guideline they pass. However, I could just be ignorant of some evidence that says they are; I'm certainly not going to start a 200+ article AfD to find out. Percy Snoodle 09:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That was my point about removing the biased parts to cut the fat as it were and strip away all 3rd/d20 specific information and get back to the basics since D&D is the father of modern PnP RPGs. The articles should not remove the need for the books to play the game, but should give enough info to seperate it from other RPGs. Probably that bias grants D&D more articles since maybe less people have heard of other games. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blue Planet

I just put together a page on the game Blue Planet (role-playing game) as I noticed it didn't have an entry before - and it was widely regarded as significant and groundbreaking at the time of it's release. I'd welcome additional edits. Also I was trying to pin down the Origins nomination - as I believe it did actually win something as well - but the archive Origins/GAMA reference links appear to be down/no longer valid. This is my first contribution --Cunnington A 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have since found some reference articles and it seems that although it was nominated it didn't win an award. Reviews I was able to reference support the view that it was critically acclaimed at the time.--Cunnington A 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooze articles

Hi. Doing some Newpage-patrol, I noticed the creation today of the articles Abysmal ooze, Ooze demon, Aquatic ooze, Jelly wraith, Jelly curd, Jelly quasit, Blood pudding (Dungeons & Dragons) all by Cryogenesis (talk · contribs). I think it would be good if someone from your project cleaned all of this up and explained to him why that is counterproductive. Thanks for your help. Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Oozoid. These have all been added to the AfD for Dreadmire so they may sort themselves out soon. Cheers --Pak21 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Just dropping a note - there is an ongoing debate over naming conventions that occurred at the D&D article Hexblade and apparently has spilled to other related articles. Basically there are a few editors who want to name all of the articles precisely (for example, Hexblade (Dungeons & Dragons), and other editors who want to use that naming style only if the title is ambiguous. At least one editor has performed moves against consensus on individual articles, but there is no centralized discussion. Maybe this is the place for it? --Aguerriero (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of the editors against using the disambiguating style when no disambiguation is needed, I'll point out that the naming convention should be Hexblade class, Hexblade character class, or Hexblade D&D character class, rather than the parenthetical, but even then I believe the title should be the most common usage, Hexblade. See also Talk:Hexblade and Talk:Warmage. -- JHunterJ 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94 pointed out during the earlier discussion that the policy is to avoid parantheticals except when needed. As much as my personal preference might be for consistancy, I think policy wins the day. --mordicai. 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding using parantheticals, it's hardly the issue. If "I'll point out that the naming convention should be Hexblade class, Hexblade character class, or Hexblade D&D character class, rather than the parenthetical" this is true, then all the "(D&D)" bits should be changed to "D&D character class" (as in moving "Barbarian (Dungeons & Dragons)" to "Barbarian D&D character class" and so on).
The problem isn't whether classes like Hexblade need disambiguation - we agree they don't. The problem is whether to change character classes which need no disambiguation to match the title format of the classes which do. So change things like "Hexblade" into whatever format classes like "Barbarian" have (so i'm guessing it would be "Hexblade D&D character class" instead of "Hexblade (D&D)").
The reason to move them is for consistency and grouping purposes.
    • This isn't a small number of articles. We have over 70 D&D class articles. Which is a LOT. And if all D&D classes end up with articles (i'm assuming red links on List of prestige classes means people are welcome to make articles for those classes), we'll have hundreds of class articles.
    • The class articles are obviously a group. They function as a group. In fact, without the "D&D classes" template linking them, many of them would be nearly orphaned. Those which are not orphaned are really only linked to by articles where D&D classes are listed. There're only a few exceptions, like "red wizards" that actually get mentioned much in other articles.
    • The majority of the articles obviously need disambiguation. This isn't like the pokemon species articles, where only a small minority need disambiguation. Of the 70 on the template, about 50 already have disambugation. The "(D&D)" on those articles show the articles are grouped together, almost like as if they're in a series i guess.
for other examples of cases where articles are disambiguated for the purpose of being consistent in a very large group of articles, see Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes or Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. Note how the majority of articles need disambiguation, but some, such as Doublemeat Palace (Buffy episode) need no disambiguation (there's nothing else called "Doublemeat Palace"). However, "Buffy episode" is added to the end for consistency, and because all the articles are clearly of a group.
It's the exact same scenario here. We have a very large number of articles which form a clear group where most defintely need disambiguation. The minority should therefore be adjusted to show consistency over the 70 articles which they are clearly grouped with.

I'm a little leery of changing all the 'Article (Dungeons & Dragons)' disambiguations to 'Article D&D character class'. My reasoning are most likely biased- I'm working on writing those above mentioned prestige class articles, and linking them into the main body of the encyclopedia. And I think that it would be more confusing to have character classes and prestige classes both under 'Article D&D character class' than it is in the current system, at least without a heavy rewrite on the difference between them; we may already need such. But if consensous is to change then I'll stand my that- we just have to hash out what everything is changed to.

I'm really on the fence about whether to disambig all the articles or not. On the Hexblade talk page I originally said to leave them alone unless needed and to keep them all consistant if we did, but whoever commented above does raise a good point about the articles being classified together. I'm not much help, I know. Morgrim 04:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by what you mean in your first paragraph. Currently, prestiage classes are named no differently to normal classes. (e.g. Arcane Archer (Dungeons & Dragons), a presige class, and Barbarian (Dungeons & Dragons), a core class). Exactly what do you mean when you say "Article D&D character class" is more confusing than "'Article (Dungeons & Dragons)"? 'Character class' in an umbrella term that includes prestige classes isn't it? --`/aksha 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really wanted to go agaisnt the grain on this, but since someone brought up naming conventions themselves… With any game it shouldn't be so specific and include general reference. What I mean is these things like Hexblade that I have never heard of in 20+ years of playing (A)D&D sholdn't falsely represent themselves as being for the whole of the games lifespan. If they are going to include in their title a disambiguation they should state that they are for d20 D&D if they are for the 3rd+ editions as this would show they are truely a part of the game and not its whole. For those people that may be looking for infromation from an encyclopedia they should be able to see things at a glance for being specific to one part rather than general and to the whole. This would hold true for any articles that may or may not be made for the other editions. As a fan I think that fans ideas should hold weight in these things because they may know more about the material that casual passersby. Not to say my opinion is the only one, but let me give an example. I play (A)D&D, and use that term to mean both D&D, and AD&D for simply typing. that covers both edition of the game prior to WotC and the d20 system game. so classifying them into 3 groups should suffice as specific enough to seperate them: D&D, AD&D, d20 D&D. While Wikipedia isn't an ad site it should be helpful to those who may use it to find things. eBay and other sites just group them into one thing and it doesnt help buyers or researches to not know the difference, having to read through an entire article to find out it isn't even what they were looking for. Distinguishing in the title by those 3 classifications will at least provide at a glance for someone doing research. Otherwise having it at the begining of an article stating what it is rather than in the title should suffice where thee is no need for a disambiguation title since it exist in only one. My total opinion if it were up to me would be to include the disambiguation in EVERY title about editions of D&D, but that is my organizational preference and may not hold for everyone elses needs. This may hold true for other games as well if they get as big on articles as the various editions of D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
uhh...you're meaning something like "[article] d20 D&D 3rd edition" as a title? I think that's going, a little too far. The whole point of adding something like "(D&D)" is so all the D&D class articles have the same title format. I think i'm right in saying that almost all the class articles make it quite clear within the article where the classes come from, so it shouldn't be too misleading. --`/aksha 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Where disabiguation is needed and an article is for only one version of the game then yes something like "[article] d20 D&D", "[article] D&D", or "[article] AD&D". That is the problem with just lumping things into D&D. They are NOT all D&D, and the 7 editions of the game are NOT all the same thing.
  • 2 versions of D&D
  • AD&D 1st edition
  • AD&D 2nd edition
  • AD&D 2.5 edition (as some would call it)
  • D&D 3.0
  • D&D 3.5
Saying they are is like saying WWII anytime you mean one of those computer games set in that time period. Hackmaster may be derived from (A)D&D, but it isn't D&D and doesn't claim to be in the article title. To be quiet honest D&D as a published product was discontinued for years and replaced by AD&D until Hasbro/WotC came out with the d20 system variant and then AD&D was discontinued as a published product. So they are 3 distinct games that just happen to be based on the same ideals. More closely than I want to admit are the d20 D&D and AD&D versions. but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. That is the whole point of naming conventions. to group similar things in a uniform way. It just makes more sense to me to say it once in the title than have it 16 times throughout the article that the article is solely about 3rd edition, etc. Considering bandwidth, server space, access times, etc. Not to say my way is the best way, but the best way I have found to do it. shadzar|Talk|contribs 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Err...I think things like what editions it spans fit far better in the first sentance than in the article title. Bolded or preferably linked in the opening sentances. Because most people who don't have a deep understanding of the versions do lump them all under the banner of D&D. Morgrim 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That wont help an overall problem outside of the Hexblade article. Is in fact the large problem with people understanding these things by lumping them all into one thing. They are relative, but are NOT the same thing. Not all articles should be define by their editions in the title. But all articles claming to be about D&D on this site are not. Their are 2 distinct classifications used by all the fans of the products. Those people with good knowledge of them. Just because other people don't udnerstand and do not have a deep understanding of the material doesn't mean the majority should rule, as it were, in defining them. There are 2 version of D&D and the title seems a good place WHEN disambiguation is needed rather than a disambiguation page between them. Wizard is a good page to look at. It has the D&D variety that does fit all editions well enough as it is a concept in them all whether the exact name is used. Hexblade if there was a tool called this would then maybe need somethign to distinguish it so why just call it D&D if it doesn't apply to everything D&D but a single edition? My point as before was the bias towards the 3rd edition as being seen as the only thing that D&D is. To me that is offensive bacause my feelings of the company and there actions, and I just plainly don't like the d20 system version of the game. I don't need it since i have $1000s worth of the other. Also it is not true that they are one in the same and will only confuse people. It do so very easily when I worked at a game store and paretns were coming in to buy products and jsut grabbed stuff because they were uninformed that the various editions were different. An encyclopedia should strive to seperate things somewhat to remove that confusion so people don't just lump everything together. Not that all articles should have an edition to them, but it would be easier unless people are going to go through and make sure the edition is included at the beginning of the article for all existing articles. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
umm...i don't claim any expertise on this subject. But isn't "advanced Dungeons & Dragons" just...a advanced version of Dungeons & Dragons? As in AD&D and d20 D&D and all the other versions are just versions built up on the original D&D. Which means D&D can be used as the umbrella term to encompass them all? And just to point out that we are supposed to be naming articles for the convience of the readers, not us editors. So if all the classes are generally lumped together as "D&D classes", then it's probably a bad idea to give them more specific names since it'll just confuse readers who're not as knowledgeable about D&D details as you. --`/aksha 11:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As I tried to edit the original article, Advacned; does not refer to a more advanced system of play in the sense that it gives more to the original moniker gamer D&D. Advanced is a whole new game built from the ground up. I cannot find Gary Gygax's quote on this subject right now, but if i can I will be sure to include it somewhere. They are not the same game. While Monopoly and Star Wars Monopoly play by pretty much the same rules with only the names or people and places and the playing pieces change, D&D and AD&D difer greater because the rules have been severly alter to make them different games. Likewise for the 3rd edition. It is like comparing the same Monopoly game to Donald Trump game or Hotel just because they are all board games dealing with economies and buying "propeties" on the board. They are all 3 similar, but distinctively different. With classes it isn't so much a problem with the lumping so long as they identify within if they are specific to one edition, but with things like Feats it is labeled as D&D, and it never existed in the game prior to 2000-2001 with the d20 system, so it isn't part of the original D&D. That is where I have the problem, and what confuses so many I try to explain it do personally. So simply they are 3 different games based on a similar premise, but that doesn't make them synonymous with each other. Like calling everyone from "oriental" ethnic backgrounds Japanese, it just doesn't work. shadzar|Talk|contribs 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"The reason to move them is for consistency and grouping purposes." This is the key argument above which I disagree with. Article titles are not grouping mechanisms; categories are. The consistency of the naming conventions is to use the most common name and disambiguate if needed; hexblades are most commonly called hexblades, and no disambiguation is needed. (If disambiguation is needed, then yes, the disambiguating text should be consistent.) And if the D&D character class template is the only thing that keeps some of these articles from being orphans, then they probably are orphans in the sense WP cares about: no article text refers to them. -- JHunterJ 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Article titles are not grouping mechanisms; categories are" well, i guess that's where we don't agree. Article titles clearly do get used as grouping mechanisms sometimes (TV episodes being the prime example) and it seems to work quite well (for them anyway). As for overall consistency, i always got the impression consistency of articles within a single field was more important (although we do value overall consistency over all the fields). --`/aksha 12:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do the individual class articles exist rather than give a breif description about them and their origins in the game, in the main classes article? shadzar|Talk|contribs 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That i don't know. I don't see why a centralized "D&D prestige classes" or "Alternate base classes A-M" wouldn't work. I guess it's probably because people think enough information exists about each class to write a entire article with. But i'm really quite doubtful about whether articles like Hexblade, Scout (Dungeons & Dragons) or Mystic Theurge (Dungeons & Dragons) will ever be good, well written non-stubs. And whether red links like Editing Spellcaster (Dungeons & Dragons) or Commoner (Dungeons & Dragons) will ever even become articles. --`/aksha 12:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
To try and prove that not only information exists, but also that there is a very nerdy teenager with a lot of time on his hands who is willing to write it, I have rewritten the hexblade article completely. It is now a good length, full of info, has four pictures, has appropriate sources cited nicely and does not challenge copyright. I only have so much time on my hands, but while there are still Dungeons & Dragons stubs, I will still be here. I do not support the merging of everything into one article. J Milburn 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

DnD Monster Infobox

Hi, to do my part in this here WikiProject, I am un-stubbing the articles on specific DnD monsters. Not sure if this is the right place for the discussion, but I would really like to see a DnD monster infobox. I have a few other issues, but they are minor ones, and so I have simply left them on my userpage, in the hope someone would give me a hand. Thanks! J Milburn 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What would be really nice is for someone to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, seeing as there are already Wikiprojects for the Greyhawk & Forgotten Realms campaign settings. I'd be glad to help, but I really don't have time to spearhead the project.--Robbstrd 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I would love to help with a D&D Monster Infobox.  :) It's a great idea! The question is, though, what would we include in it? Type, alignment, CR, HD? Here are some examples of other infoboxes: Template:D&D Deity, Template:DnDmodule, Template:D&D character. BOZ
What does all those fancy licenses allow for? You wouldn't want to remove the need for the books or the article would definately violate copyright. Most common info probably, as I am sure you are meaning for 3rd/d20 infobox and I don't know what all was changed, but a good place to start would be: name, image, caption, climate/terrain, HD. This would give a good look at it without to must specific info to know something about the monsters. shadzar|Talk|contribs 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Anything that can be found here is open source, I THINK. I am not awfully familiar with the rules for it, the details will be on the site somewhere. A WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons I would love, as it is really the only roleplaying game that I know enough about to want to edit the articles. Writing out all the stats would be innapropriate... J Milburn 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with a good knowledge of copyright law and Wikipedia's copyright policy may be able to help with this. I am not sure where we stand with that. J Milburn 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

mass merging D&D articles.

There are possibly too many stubs on certain things such as classes, races, etc in the D&D portfolio on this site that many will probably never be expanded on. To help with it what about merging all those excess articles into the main article about it Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) for example having a breif description about them all rather than each one having a stub. This of course would fit all other RPGs if any have excess stubs like D&D has with its nearly 1000 articles. Which to me sems a bit silly to have that many fully developed articles as encyclopedic content. Just merge the articles into their main ideas and have them fit the 32k limit. This would trim the fat, remove potential edition bias, reduce D&D game bias and reduce the need for worry about article names. Ideas? shadzar|Talk|contribs 12:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support. I don't like seeing small stubby articles that look like they're going to remain stubby for a long time. We can merge, and if eventually the articles grow too long, we can just split again. Having articles like "D&D prestige classes" or "Alternate base classes A-M" would also solve the current naming issue entirely...since we aren't going to have 70 odd individual class articles.
I'd support this too. This sort of approach has worked well in other WikiProjects, for example the list of Doctor Who monsters and similar articles. The existing articles should be kept as redirects to the lists. Percy Snoodle 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a question, i don't suppose there's a master list of D&D classes somewhere? The lists seems to be very spread out amoung the list of prestige classes article, the main classes article, and articles for various D&D guildbooks. --`/aksha 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Before I suggested or thought about merging I went looking, and there are so many articles I easily got lost trying to track down D&D based articles. If only the main articles are included, wizard, bard, cleric, monk, etc; and the others deleted, those from odd little books like the old style kits; then it would eliminate need to tracking them all down. A list of JUST D&D classes printed in official material would proabably excede the 32k size with all the little variants of them. If somehting is in a special guildbook and on that guildbook page I would say leave it as it is a part of that book. Not sure where the whole card catalog of D&D books fit on Wikipedia or not, but I don't think they classify as "textbooks" enough to belong on WikiBooks. shadzar|Talk|contribs 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lists of all the official classes, monsters, spells, feats and prestiege classes here. There are far to many classes for an article each, and there are significantly more of the other things. I think the Monster Manual creatures each deserve their own articles, as well as other big monsters, such as Warforged. Unsure about the classes, I personally prefer writing about the monsters. J Milburn 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do the monsters need their own article? those lists only apply to the most current editin and not all of D&D. That is why I propose merging 50% of the articles to remove the excess that steps over the WP:NOT lines.
  • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Each little thing doesn't need its own article even if the SRD allows it. Some "monsters" do occur in other mythology and legends so I am not saying merge those, but just these giant lists of articles that supercede the need to even buy the books, and whose content can be downloaded from WotC website. I don't see it justifiable that everything from the versions of D&D be included on Wikipedia. There is just too much information. shadzar|Talk|contribs 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't have an article on absolutely everything, I linked to those lists to demonstrate just how impossible and pointless it would be. Major monsters, races, classes and presteige classes deserve their own articles, in my opinion. For instance, grouping together the core classes in one article would be a bad idea, in my eyes. J Milburn 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't actually answer your question. I think the monsters deserve their own articles because there is a large amount of information available on them that is encyclopedic, and they are notable within the game. They are not notable exclusively within the gaming community, however- people could easily come across them elsewhere. Also, talking about what the monster is based on is something that would fit well into the encyclopedia. Imagine if we upload one or even more images for every monster, which I personally feel would be a good idea- They would certainly not fit in if all the information about the monster was one line containing no real information in a rather large, boring article. J Milburn 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Any image uploaded will more than likely violate copyright if taken from inside the books unless there is express written permission from the copyright holder to use it on Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
They fall under copyright, yes, but while discussing the aspect of the game that they are a picture of, surely they are fair use? I am looking at the tag on this WikiProject page as support for this. I have phrased that badly, but I am sure you follow what I mean. J Milburn 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As I am saying about most of the articles on D&D… WP:FU The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If the monsters are notable "within the game", but don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then they probably ought to be transwikied to a gaming wiki. Percy Snoodle 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A plea for rationale

So far, this appears to be a non-discussion. There's a great deal of arm-waving, but we have no threshold for inclusion, only a vague desire to merge articles down to some arbitrary number or percentage. If there is a desire to merge wholesale, then the discussion must be based on a measurable threshold for inclusion. Observe WP:BOOK for some guidelines on how notability is established. Consider how this applies to roleplaying game content. Consider feature articles from popular gaming or fantasy-related fiction such as Bulbasaur, Red vs. Blue (and sub-articles such as Donut (Red vs. Blue)), Spoo, TARDIS, etc.

Once you have a sense of what constitutes a metric for inclusion, formulate it here, and we can discuss it. Until then, spamming merge tags over an entire genre is a bit premature. -Harmil 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The comment about copyrights and permission is wildly misleading. Please, don't try to re-state WP:COPY in a sentence, just link to it. In general, the word, "permission," should not be used in connection with image uploads, as that implies something which is unacceptable with respect to Wikipedia. In general WP:FAIR gives a good guide to how copyrighted material can and cannot be used. This edit, for example: [1] was a direct result of that policy, replacing one copyrighted image with another specifically to meet the rationale requirements of the policy. -Harmil 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on my own review of the tagged materials (see the list in the next section, below), I would suggest that D&D material should have the following criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article (meeting any one may be sufficient, but meeting more than one is ideal)
  • The concept has become iconic to games of D&D's genre since its introduction. The Magic User/Wizard/etc. is clearly of this sort. Yes, it's just a class, but that class has shaped just about every other game since, which either model their magical characters on D&D or attempt to avoid such similarities.
  • For deities and other notable NPCs, they must exist in two or more non-adventure publications, and should be described in detail (a casual mention of the name or a stat-block would not qualify).
  • For character classes
    • Those which only appear in suplimental materials should be combined into a larger article.
    • Those which are variants of existing classes should appear in the article for their associated classes (e.g. "Wizard" should include "Magic User" (from 1st ed.) and "Sorcerer" (from 3rd ed.) as these are not substantially different concepts from an encyclopedic standpoint.
  • For setting elements:
    • Places should fit the same criteria as NPCs.
    • If there is insufficient available information about a setting element to expand into a full article, it should be merged.
    • If there are real-world religious or popular fiction analogs, the article should be kept as a target for disambiguation (e.g. Baator).
These are just some ideas, and I may not have covered a wide enough base, but it's a start. -Harmil 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Within the scope of WPRPG?

  • I'm personally not sure such as massive, D&D-specific undertaking is within the scope of this Wikiproject. Perhaps this issue would be best addressed if all interested parties joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons--which is, as I noted above, a wikiproject that is sorely needed. This would leave the RPG wikiproject free to deal with more general issues and articles that cover roleplaying as a whole, while the D&D-oriented Wikipedians can have a place to address more D&D-specific stuff--Robbstrd 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree, but there is not, now, any other place to address the rampant merge-tagging of D&D-related articles. If you create a D&D WikiProject, I'll join and redirect the conversation there, happily. -Harmil 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge list

Since Shadzar has not already done so, I'm just going to list all of Shadzar's proposed merge targets here with their sources:

Has Shadzar considered for a second just how much of a huge, ungainly mess Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) would be if all 47 of those other articles were merged into it?  :) This is another thing that should be considered before making a final decision on mass-merging.
I agree. I think the Ooze articles there could very easily be merged, as could the Arcanis articles. There is no way that merging all of those articles would be a good idea. There is just so much potential RELEVENT information on each one, a couple of lines would not do it justice. Perhaps merging specific sourcebooks into one article? Character classes from Complete Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons)? Even then... J Milburn 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the Arcanis articles. Probably right about the oozes as well - I don't think I wrote any of the ones under contention there. I don't think all D&D planes need to be merged into one article, but possibly as categories. For character classes, I'd say that all the PHB classes should have an article, and if you want to break them down by book, why not put all the Complete Arcane classes into Complete Arcane? BOZ.
For classes, all the core classes should be kept seperate. There is much to say about them, they're a step up in notability to the alternate base classes that appear only once or twice, and they appear in lots of media. For the alternate base classes, i think 10-15 classes per article is sensible. For the pretiage classes, 10-15 per article is also sensible...but there're so many prestiage classes listed on the article list of prestiage classes, and only a handful have articles. I have no idea how we would organize the pretiage classes (as in which ones merged with which ones). --`/aksha 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand completey what a mess a huge article would be with all classes in it. I am not saying D&D should be the only thing for this project, but seems like it needs the most work. I don't know about the other RPGs so can only assist on the ones I do. I also see so many articles that deal with the game mechanics or aspects thereof. So does every aspet of the game mechanics need to have its own article? Every last monster ever official created, every last NPC, every obscure class, every feat. That is where I am looking. Yes I suggested the Category Dietes be condensed or deleted what, maybe sepereated into subcategories for settings would be better. I think the notability of the articles subject should be for those special things like Elminster. But we don't need to target 3rd edition as being the heart and sole of D&D or its only focus WP:BIAS. There should be a D&D WikiProject, but also I cannot head it because I am too new to Wikipedia. It is one thing to having notable content for encyclopedic reference, but not every detail of the game needs its own article. 30 years worth of the games specific details would be more than should be in ANY encyclopedia. What if every RPG had 1000+ articles like D&D does? There are less articles on more notable things D&D. Maybe we should look over the goals and scope of the RPG project and see and define what it is that is considered notable enough to have its own article for D&D and everything else. Then with D&D as large as it is, clean it up and organize it an have it stand as example for the others that wish to create articles. The D&D classes infobox thing that lists them all is longer than most articles it appears in. That is why I targeted classes. Every class doesn't need a single article, they can be split/merged in main groups: base, prestige, etc. Wizard (Dungeons & Dragons) is considered a stub and contains more than enough to give a generalized look at the wizard in D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Almost irrelevant comment: the suggested Ooze merges are somewhat my "fault", relating from a different discussion. Relevant comment: as an outsider to the WikiProject, but one with (I'd like to think) a pretty good knowledge of both Wikipedia and D&D, it does seem to me that a number of the character class articles could do with merging. If nothing else, the number of splatbooks out there is only going to grow, and with it the number of character classes. Leaving the PHB core classes with an article each, and grouping the rest by book of (first) publication sounds like a reasonable compromise to me; if there are any classes which are particularly notable for other reasons, they can always be broken out as a special case. Cheers --Pak21 08:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, it sounds very logical. Oozes and Arcanis to be merged into one, classes to be merged into articles by book that they appeared in, and the same for presteige classes, apart from core, and particuarly notable. I think there are some notable prestiege classes out there- especially certain ones that have been written originally in 3.0, then again in 3.5. I am thinking about Mage of the Arcane Order (Dungeons & Dragons) and Blighter (Dungeons & Dragons), for example. That would mean more space for the base classes than the presteige classes, as there are more base classes per book than presteige classes, which I think is a good thing. Planes and deities should be kept seperate, in my opinion, with the possible exception of Deities from Complete Warrior (Dungeons & Dragons) or something similar, for the books that introduce a batch of deities that are never mentioned anywhere else again, within reason. The game mechanics articles I am honestly not sure about, at all. J Milburn 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

Birthed and just brought home the D&D project exists and the RPG project has a new child. Hopefully we can get advise from other RPGers here to develop a good project. Please add any ideas or inquires to the new projects talk page. (including any D&D sections here that crowd out the general RPG project.) shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CORPS listed for deletion

While not an incredibly popular game system, CORPS was available in many game stores and was influential in the creation of EABA. I would encourage project participants to vote to keep this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CORPS Allegrorondo 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

INFObox

Hi, I'd like to have an Infobox for the WoD Garoutribes. The articles layout would graetly benefit from that. Does anyone know how to create such a template ? Heinrich k 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably should take a look at Help:Infobox. I'd also recommend considering making a minor topics list rather than giving each splat its own article; see List of Doctor Who aliens for an example. Percy Snoodle 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I now made a Box for each tribe (there are just a few) but somehow i'd like it better, if i knew how to design a template insead of defining a new box every time. I'd too would like tho make the descriptions more uniform.Heinrich k 09:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That information can be found by reading Help:Infobox and following its links. Percy Snoodle 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure it can. But i didn't find it and after looking for it for a while i grew impatiend, so I did stop looking. I also developed some intimidating awe by the all offically look of all the templates listed, regarding the fact, that mine was just for some roleplaying game. Heinrich k 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New article

I came across the article Pantheon role playing game on new page patrol- it could do with some attention- it probably needs moving, it needs sourcing, it could do with a little cleanup and some added info, or it might even need to be deleted, I will let you be the judge of that! Thanks. J Milburn 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on it and adding info for it. All help welcome! I'm looking for an image of the cover, but I'm not sure if I can pull one from Hogshead Publishings page or not. Tajoman 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games/Archive_3&oldid=1137367112"