Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons page.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons: edit · history · watch · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents

[edit] Notability

After the main page is reworked we should make a list of what constitutes notability for articles to prevent the duplication of every concept in the game. Which monsters, NPCs, etc? Someone should also notify the Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk projects. Figure out the parentage of the projects. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Citizens and their entimology would be an interesting sub-section for each campaign setting. For example, Mordenkainen was the character the Gary Gygax played in greyhawk, and still exists in the oficial campaign world as a background political figure and a member of the Circle of Eight. As for monsters, noteability should be a small section linking historical monsters to their real mythological counterparts (Gorgons, Dragons, Medusa, etc.) Piuro 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As for NPCs, I feel that those with ties to specific settings are beyond the scope of this wikiproject, and should be dealt with by the setting wikiproject, should one exist. Characters that I think WP:D&D have jurisdiction over would include iconics (Jozan, Krusk, etc), the characters from the D&D cartoon & both movies, and any others without specific setting ties.--Robbstrd 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Campaigns are listed as children-projects of this, and this would be a good place to list a standarization. Piuro 00:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I was meaning more along the lines of criteria that must be met to be considered notable. How many modules/books/accessories should DemonX appear in before it is notable to the whole of generic (A)D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Iconics only. So Drizz't is (sadly) okay, but Dispater, despite having a good portion of a chapter to himself, isnt. Piuro 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Drizz't is a FR character, so would be fall under the authority of WP:Forgotten Realms. I think Dispater (& other archdevils & demon lords) are definitely notable enough to include, as they've appeared in a number of editions, settings, & products. I don't think we should start marking long-standing, lengthly articles for deletion just because the subject isn't considered "iconic" enough.--Robbstrd 21:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monsters

Dire rat, I think, should probably be merged to Dire animal.--Robbstrd 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I brought that up in Dire Rat's talkpage. -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will do that now, and clean up the dire animal article in general. J Milburn 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Going into the detail that I like to, this is looking like it is going to be a huge article, with perhaps 100 seperate citations. I am working on a new version in my sandbox, if anyone wants to take a look, or give me a hand. J Milburn 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And Dire Animal should probably be merged into some kind of prominent monsters article. Piuro 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with merging Dire Animal into a larger article. There are a lot of these general categories of monsters (including "celestial creatures", "lycanthropes" and "vampires") which can modify a large number of other monsters. I think that if you added them all together you would get an article that was excessivly large.Big Mac 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, someone went around tagging a few dozen monster articles with the Forgotten Realms creature template. Seems we don't need that for every creature to ever appear in the FR, just the ones who significantly affect the world in some way.
I've been removing articles concerning monsters from the MAIN Monster Manual from that category. I got Behir and Dire animal, gimme a list of any others and let's tell this guy that adding the FRCat is unnecessary. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[1]. I entirely agree that adding the FR cat for things in the MM is unnecessary. Cheers --Pak21 13:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Any way to discipline this anon while we're at it? I'm lucky I caught the two earlier pages when I did. -Jeske (v^_^v) 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I would urge you to assume good faith. Leave a civil message on their talk page explaining why you think their actions are unnecessary and revert their edits with an appropriately civil edit summary. Cheers --Pak21 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm being civil with edit summaries, I'll add a message after the next one. But, giving each of the edite above are (usually) within sixty seconds of each other, I'm a bit concerned. EDIT: Done with the notice on the talk page AND with the monster articles. I missed one, I'm sure of it. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine for a mainstream monster article to have a campaign setting category as long as A) the monster is particularly notable in that setting (such as illithids in Spelljammer) or B) the article includes a section on the monster's role in that specific setting (such as "Drow in Ebberon").--Robbstrd 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say add the category if it's unique/important in that setting, but don't add the category if there is a section addressing the creature's role in a specific setting, and said role isn't significant enough to warrant the category (example, add "Eberron" cat to Changeling or "Forgotten Realms" cat to Drow, but don't add "Eberron" to Griffon or "Forgotten Realms" to Gibbering Mouther). -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur for specialty monster that are specific to a campaign have a setting cat (Thri-keen Dark Sun), but most are general use (Illithids). Sooner or later all monsters will become general anyway, so many noting them where they originated or are most prominent like kenders to Dragonlance. 13:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
While being bold on Friday and cleaning out some categories, they were exactly the criteria I used, so I agree. I may go through Category:Forgotten Realms creatures sometime today and do the same. Cheers --Pak21 09:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll start cleaning out the FRC cat. EDIT: Done. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 14:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, these suggestions are just that--not all members of this Wikiproject agree. I, for one, disagree with the removal of campaign-specific categories from several articles. If someone has taken the time to write about that creature's role in a particular campaign setting, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to leave the category. After all, if someone is interested in a creature's role in a specific setting, the easiest way for them to access the info is by looking for that creature on the setting category page. I plan to revert some of those edits.--Robbstrd 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Feel free to - I'm not perfect, after all, and I'm not going to revert you if you feel there is a valid reason to leave the category in. And, by the way, my name's not Jesse. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry--the one letter threw me off.--Robbstrd 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the comments made on the 5th of November about Illithids being general creatures. Some general monsters have been used in different ways in specific campaign settings. Illithids may be found in many other campaign settings, but they are a major part of the Spelljammer background and need to have the Spelljammer cat. If I ever see it is removed, I will put it back on again unless someone explains to my satisfaction exactly why it shouldn't be there. I'm sure that other people would have similar disagreements over other monsters that they think are associated with other settings.
I think it would be better for people to talk about removing monsters from categories before doing it. D&D is a complex subject and it is impossible to know everything about all its campaign settings. If something has a Forgotten Realms cat and you think it shouldn't then it would be better to get the FR experts to look at it. I'm sure that some things are mis-classified, but there could be a very good reason why a category is there.
Some general monsters had their origin with specific campaign settings. I think it is ok for them to keep a campaign specific category even after being general monsters. I think that fans of certain settings would find it easier to find the monsters with the category.
Can't we just put all the core monsters into a "core D&D" category? That way if a monster from a previous edition of a specific campaign setting becomes more general, it can be found from both category pages. People looking for it from both ends would find it.
Wizards of the Coast has looted out of print TSR settings and brought some of their monsters into the core rulebooks. If Wikipedia starts to boot those monsters out of their specialised categories then the out of print settings are going to slowly get eaten away on Wikipedia. This wouldn't be a true picture of the facts. Wikipedia articles should show the past as well as the present. If monster "generalisation" happens to previously specialised monsters, then the only way to help people find the monsters associated with settings would be to create a series of "monsters found in the <instert setting name> campaign setting" articles. At the moment, I don't think those sort of articles are necessary, because the categories do the same job.
While we are on the subject of campaign setting - what do people think should be done about special variants of common creatures? For example: Moon elves and sun elves seem to be specific to Forgotten Realms, but are a subrace of elves. Should they be part of the elf article or should they be in separate articles? And all elves are together then is it therfore logical to add the Forgotten Realms category to the elf article? My guess is that things like this need separate articles so that they can be given campaign setting categories to match.
Big Mac 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"I think it would be better for people to talk about removing monsters from categories before doing it.". My principle on this is to be bold: if I screw up, I have no problem whatsoever with people reverting the changes (as they have done). Certainly, Dungeons & Dragons creatures is/was heavily populated with Dungeons & Dragons extraplanar creatures and Dungeons & Dragons fiends which I see no reason whatsoever for keeping, referring in particular to Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories: "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory". Cheers --Pak21 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory 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. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. 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 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Userbox

I've noticed other projects having their own userboxes, and am wondering if perhaps we should have one. I'm going to work on the basics (probably borrow the Template:User Dungeons & Dragons design). Suggestions on the userbox would be great. I'll work on it on my talk page, and suggestions could be left there. --Everchanging02 08:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My Userbox ideas are below. Please let me know what you think. --Everchanging02 09:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. -Jeske (v^_^v) 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Not having heard anyhting more on changes, where should which one be saved (so that members can utilize it)?--Everchanging02 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D&D Template

[edit] Variant #1

D&D This user is a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons.




[edit] Variant #2

D&D This user is a member of WikiProject D&D.




Could we make the left box just "D&D" in black? Also, maybe a black border, with white fill and black text in the box on the right. - Peregrinefisher 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Im completely remaking this to fit more with the theme, don't worry. Piuro 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Quasi-fixed. Looking into the borders stuff. --Everchanging02 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And more-fully fixed, although revamped. I don't quite like the Userbox template, since it likes to continue on the same line, but I'm not sure how to add a border to the other format. I can look into it, but whatever works works, I guess. Let me know. --Everchanging02 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BIAS

We should strive to remove from the articles on general D&D the bias towards 3rd+ and d20 system and make a more neutral approach to all things surrounding the game mechanics. Either give each article a section based on the edition, or just remove the edition specific content and give a general overlook on them. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I think a section on previous editions should be included where applicable, I feel that the main thrust of articles should be on the current edition, whether it's 3.5, 4.0, etc. Wikipedia loses much of its value if it isn't kept current. After all, how useful would an article on the United States be if it was written chiefly from a 1979 perspective?--Robbstrd 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Also remember we have less to work with (Legally) if there we don't focus on the current version. See the main D&D talk page. Piuro 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't just use the latest edition because then it turns the articles into advertisements. By having information on all editions where applicable it can hold better to be encyclopedia content rather than a commercial for the newest edition. Not to mention the newest edition is NOT the only version still played. shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, D&D has a 30+ year history that should not be ignored. I'm fine with a bias towards 3rd edition, but not at the expense of pertinent info from previous editions that has yet to carry over. BOZ
The problem with giving specifics on any edition is when it changes you will need to update every page. Also the OGL (WotC) and GFDL (Wikipedia) licenses are incompatible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons) shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Surely, there isn't much that changes from edition to edition, when talking about, say, monsters? It would only be the mechanics for a lot of things that would change, and we won't be including them? J Milburn 11:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as the 3.5 is the currently supported & canon edition, I do think that a bias towards it is probably deserved. Does that mean that information from old editions should be discarded or ignored? Certainly not. It may require a caveat (for instance, many topics regarding the planes will be differ significantly from earlier editions), but the history of the game is far more encyclopedic than turning WP into a source book or heaven forbid an advertisement. --mordicai. 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia articles should feature the most up to date information (which in the case of D&D would be 3.5 edition), but if things have changed over time (i.e. if 2nd or 1st edition AD&D or D&D did things a different way) the article should always also give the older information as well.
One example of changing information are the gods. Gods are occasionally created or destroyed in products. If a god's status changes it would be good if the in-game year of the change could be listed and the older information given below the current information. I think that originally there was no such thing as an "intermediate deity" (just "minor" and "major") and that gods were shuffled up and down a bit in the 2nd edition of AD&D. Some gods have also had their alignment changed.
However, I would make an exception for information which has specifically been changed in erratas. Wizards of the Coast have a lot of erratas for current and previous (TSR) products. I think that any Wikipedia articles should follow the information in erratas if they exist (rather than products with misprints).
If different D&D sources disagree on specific facts then this should also be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Although care will need to be taken to work out which article is incorrect as this borders on opinion rather than fact. I would tend to trust D&D products that are closer to the source material.
(Here are a couple of examples of disputes within D&D: One Forgotten Realms product (I don't know the name) places the Rock of Bral (a Spelljammer asteroid) in the Tears of Selune, but The Cloakmaster Cycle of books (Spelljammer books) instead place it in a crystal sphere called Spiralspace. In this case I'd support the Spelljammer material. However I've been told that the Spelljammer material about Shou Lung conflicts with the Kara-Tur campaign setting and in that case I'd go with Kara-Tur products.)
Big Mac 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Mechanics

Also we should decide how much game mechanics is needed and how much relates specifically to D&D editions. Breath Weapon for example defines certain monsters which have them and there effects. We should prevent from removing the need to purchase the books to play the game and be as general as possible in the game mechanics as per WP:NOT in respect to instruction manuals and game guides. Most notable ones of course should have a page (if enough general information can be given without superceding the need for the purchase of the books), but others should be small ideas to introduce the particular mechanic but not give details on all aspects of it. Feats for 3rd edition, THAC0 for AD&D, etc. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that game mechanics should not be overly detailed, nor should monster descriptions include things like hit dice, base attack bonus, etc. Wikipedia should not be a replacement for the Core Rules, SRD, etc. IMO, D&D wikipedia articles should focus more on "fluff" than "crunch."--Robbstrd 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    I completely agree, and I have tried to do that on my own articles. All description and non-mechanical metagame information, nothing mechanical. J Milburn 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

The to-do list linked to at the top of the page is a general one, and not D&D specific. Do you think it could be re-routed to a subpage with stubs, requests, wikification and the type, with D&D specific articles? J Milburn 11:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have added a couple of things myself. Delete them if I have done wrong, otherwise, add to it as you find things! J Milburn 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books and Lists and Templates, oh my!

We should come to some consensus about how to categorize the books, and what to include in templated boxes on appropriate articles. The current template (Template:D&D Books) is only 3rd edition material (except for the link to pre-3E modules), makes no distinction between 3E/3.5, and is woefully out of date. Campaign-setting material is handled inconsistently, and no such box exists at all for older material. Associated lists aren't any better at the moment, really. My suggestion is as follows:

  1. Put the lists in order.
    1. 3E/3.5 books. This does not include modules (covered by the extant list for that material), nor does it include any campaign setting info, although it has links to the appropriate other lists.
    2. 3E/3.5 modules. As current.
    3. Pre-3E (or individual lists by edition ... consensus needed) books. As the 3E/3.5 list, but for older material. I prefer having a single list here rather than splitting, in the manner that the modules are currently handled.
    4. Pre-3E modules. As current.
    5. Campaign Setting product lists, for each that deserves one (not Ghostwalk, for example). Only one list, not split by edition, although the list itself clearly delineates. I'm ambivilent about whether the campaign setting modules should have their own lists ... I don't think there are enough to warrant though, and it seems a bit of list proliferation to me.
    6. Set up a master list with links to the sublists and anything that falls through the cracks.
  2. Do something about the templates.
    1. Migrate the current template to be 3E/3.5 content, sectionalized to show which are which. Include links to the 3E/3.5 module list, and to the lists for campaign settings extant in the edition (i.e. not Spelljammer) or the main article for smaller ones like Ghostwalk. Apply this to all articles for appropriate books.
    2. Create an equivalent template for pre-3E material (or for each edition should we choose to go that way -- though, again, I would think not). Include links to the pre-3E module list and appropriate campaign settings (i.e. not Eberron). Apply to appropriate articles.
    3. Create an equivalent template for exceptionally large campaign settings. Forgotten Realms certainly deserves one, and probably Greyhawk too. Dragonlance would likely also benefit, since it has been spun off as a d20 product in 3E that wouldn't otherwise be covered in the lists.
  3. Make sure everything links to the approprate lists and uses the correct templates. Redirect or delete anything now deprecated, such as the original D&D Books template.

This keeps everything organized, seems reasonably maintainable, and ensure there are no direct links to Category pages from projectspace. I'm about to inherit a lot of spare time this week and am willing to do most of the heavy lifting, but I'm not about to start this kind of page restructuring without some consensus, espeically since this project is finally around. Serpent's Choice 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad news - some pre-3e books were remade in 3e and 3.5. How will you differentiate? -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to. Books that appear in both editions, such as Deities and Demigods, will appear on both lists, and will receive both templates. There's no reason to have articles for each edition; there's not enough content to warrant it. The only drawback to this plan is that those books would have two rather large boxes at the bottom, but I think keeping the articles organized in a consistent, usable manner is worth the possible aesthetic concerns. Serpent's Choice 05:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My concern was with books made before 3rd edition, not books made in 3e and errata'ed in 3.5.
Um, but my example is such a book. The original 1E Deities and Demigods was published in 1980 (and is best known for its inclusion of Cthulhu material). There is also a 3E book with the same name. Under my proposal, the article for Deities and Demigods would include information about both editions (as it does now, although the 3E information is uncharacteristically weak) and would receive the templated book-list box for both 3E/3.5 books and Pre-3E books. The book would appear on both lists as well. Does this satisfy your concerns? Serpent's Choice 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Thank'ee for clarification. I was also concerned about:
  • Oriental Adventures
  • The core rulebooks
  • Tome of Magic

-Jeske (How's My Editing?) 05:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OA and the core books will certainly be handled in the same way. Tome of Magic is a little special, since the 2E Tome of Magic and the 3.5 Tome of Magic are totally different books. At current, they are covered in the same article. The Project will eventually want to consider if they should be handled on separate pages. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am currently doing research into 3.5 to find out exactly what sort of things have severly altered in the game mechanics and source material and to see what kind of source would be allowed, by playing the game and talking to someone who publishes under the d20 OGL. I think sorting the books would be a good idea, but if to books have the same name they should be on the same article with each having their own section. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Book List Template

For use at the bottom of 3.0/3.5 sourcebooks, including campaign setting-specific material, for the Project's examination. See User:Serpent's Choice/Testplate. Its large-ish, but there are a ton of books! I'll give this a few days of Project observation/commentary time before I consider converting existing articles or even launching this template to the Template space. Serpent's Choice 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This did raise some questions, though. Is City of the Spider Queen an adventure? How about Return to Castle Ravenloft? Serpent's Choice 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm boldly going ahead with this. I'm open to other options later if we want, for example, a smaller box, but these articles are in such a dismally sad state that something needs to get started. Serpent's Choice 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
All existing 3.X book articles now have this template. All non-book articles and non-3E articles that had this template have had it removed. A pre-3E source template will be necessary, but my priority is current material at the moment. Too much of this stuff won't pass an AFD in its current state. Serpent's Choice 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll work on the pre 3 book template. Is there a version of a template that's already close to what we want? - Peregrinefisher 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Not even remotely. And I'm not sure we can just do what I did for the 3E template ... its montrously large, and the pre-3E one would dwarf it easily. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deities

How are we going to deal with deities used in the D&D pantheon? -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, what needs to be dealt with? I mean, what is our wish-list? --mordicai. 03:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say we standardize how the deities are discussed in each article. I propose something like this:
  1. Clerical Training and role in society
  • should likely include why someone devoted to that deity would undergo a quest for him/her
  1. Temples
  2. Rituals and Prayers
Comments? -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm worried about veering too near to "source material" for the game & encylopedic content. Also, you have seen the box for deities, yes? --mordicai. 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent, as it makes listing ugly...) I'm concerned that Jeske's suggestion is too much duplication of source material (and, regarding the questing bit, too much movement toward OR). We don't want these articles to duplicate Deities and Demigods etc., while still conveying useful information. Here's one possible article structure, although I'm not too attached to the layout.

  • (Lede). All articles need one. What do we want there? I think a discussion of where the diety was introduced (sourcebook-wise), and any identifiable real-world inspirations for the deity are good places to start. The lede should be exclusively outside-the-world material.
  • Faith. I'm thinking that a paraphrased summary of the dogma can go here. After all, that explains, in essence, what the deity is about. We want to be careful not to just copy the dogma section out of one of the books, though.
  • Worshippers. Where is this deity worshipped? Are there any significant temples or holy places identified in sources? What general kind of people hold to this faith? Have any significant NPCs been identified as faithful?
  • History. For deities with a significant plotline in canon material, this can be a summary of the important plot events. I'm most familiar with the Realms, where ascended mortals like Mystra and Cyric can benefit from this section. In the core pantheon, there's a lot to say about Vecna.
  • In <Campaign Setting>. Some deities are going to appear in core and one or more specific campaign settings. Each such specific setting should get a blurb. For some, that's all it will be. For others, like Lolth, there will be extensive material about the deity's differing role and influence in that campaign setting.

Any thoughts on this structure? And, furthermore, any thoughts as to what we can do to that thing that is the current deity box (and its campaign-world-specific children)?? Serpent's Choice 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I propose the following:
    • Lead paragraph. This can be as simple as "Subject is a deity of . . . in the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game." It should include the deity's portfolio, pantheon, racial origin, & campaign setting, at the minimum (if known).
    • Description: This section should include the deity's appearance, personal weapons, and personality. Relationships with other gods may also be included here, or perhaps in a subsection.
    • Dogma: A brief rundown of the deity's rules & regulations for the faithful. This should also include the deity's symbol, favored animals, favored colors, holy texts, types of services, sacrifices, etc.
    • Worshippers: This should detail the types of people drawn to this deity.
      • Clergy: This subsection should include the role of priests, required garb, duties, required training, etc.
      • Temples: This subsection should provide details on where the deity is worshipped (both geography & type of structure).
    • Holy days: Self-explanatory.
    • Artifacts: Any artifacts associated with the faith, such as the Hand of Vecna.
    • History: If warrented, this could provide historical background for the development of the faith, historical events in which the deity/faith palyed an important role, & life history if the deity's an ascended mortal (such as Kyuss, Zagyg, Vecna, etc).
    • Myths and legends: Self-explanatory.
  • Other sections may be warrented, depending on the individual deity.
  • As for the Core deities, I propose placing most of them in both the D&D category & Greyhawk category. Some, however, such as Corellon, Lolth, Gruumsh, Tiamat, etc need not be in the Greyhawk category, as they span several campaign worlds. Campaign-specific deities outside the core, for the most part, should be handled by individual campaign wikiprojects. I see the D&D Wikiproject dealing mainly with the core deities, racial deities (from Monster Mythology), archfiends, and "supplemental" deities which didn't originate in a campaign-specific source (such as the ones in Libris Mortis, for example).--Robbstrd 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That'll work. I support Robb's idea. As for the "Quests" section, I was looking at the appendix in the back of my copy of the Expanded Psionics Handbook while typing it, and it does have a quests section there. Just an explanation of *why* I added quests in my idea above. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The biggest problems I see with articles about deities:
Core deities: The problem with the deities is that D&D didn't really have "core deities" until 3e. Before that there were a number of products that added a pantheon of deties/gods onto D&D (or AD&D). So you have a number of different sources for information on D&D gods.
Greyhawk: Most, but not all of the so called "core gods" come from the Greyhawk pantheon (Heironeous, Pelor, Kord, Wee Jas, St. Cuthbert, Boccob, Fharlanghn, Obad-Hai, Olidammara, Hextor, Nerul, Vecna and Erythnul). These gods are all the ones available to human characters. They are not really "core" because they can not be used in the Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms campaign settings. Effectively anyone using "core" products is running a Greyhawk campaign. However the D&D gods are only a small subset of the vast number of Greyhawk gods. I think the common root of "core" gods needs to be explained within their articles.
Racial pantheons: Non-human gods generally have their own pantheons. The 3e players handbook and monster manuals now generally only mention one non-human god for each race. Although the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting printed stats for several gods in the Drow, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Halfling and Orc pantheons.
Gods are part of campaign settings: Other campaign settings have their own alternative pantheons. These settings replace the "Greyhawk" gods with different gods, although in many cases the non-human gods are kept. I think that gods are so closely linked to campaign settings that it is essential to mention campaign settings or names of game worlds where the god may be found within all articles.
Dragonlance: The Dragonlance campaign setting is very strict about gods and does not allow any non-human gods. Non-humans and humans all worship the same pantheon. Two of the gods were killed off in the 3e version of the Dragonlance campaign setting.
Forgotten Realms: The Forgotten Realms campaign setting has many other campaign settings (which are currently out of print) associated with it. This means it has multiple pantheons. The "main" FR pantheon is actually the Faerun pantheon. This needs to be made clear. There is also a Mulhorandi pantheon (which is a subset of the egyptian pantheon presented in older products). The religions from Kara-Tur, Maztica, The Horde, Al-Quadim and the Arcane Age also apply to the Forgotten Realms. Several Faerun gods have been killed off in the 3e version of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and other new gods have been created. These articles are likely to be complex. It would be good to use one of them as an example when working out templates and rules.
Planescape: The Planescape campaign setting was based in the planes and featured a lot of information about the gods, their homes (home planes) and their representitives. You need to get a Planescape expert onboard the team if possible.
Historical changes to D&D gods: As the gods have been altered over the years, I think it would be essential to list all of the products where a god has been documented, as well as the changes themselves. Some gods have been promoted in rank, demoted in rank. Mortals have achived godhood and gods have been killed. Articles need to be able to show the evolution of the god if changes have occured. I'd be especially interested in knowing where the god first appeared, so something like a timeline of products containing the god could be useful.
Real life gods in D&D: Historical pantheons (or real pantheons) have also been made available in the past. Some of these pantheons have been dropped from more recent products (the most recent version of Deities and Demigods has a lot of the original pantheons missing from it). Because duplicate names have been used for D&D products that don't contain the same gods (1e and 3e "Deities and Demigods" being the biggest problem) articles will need to find some other way to describe individual versions of the books. We also have to deal with the problem of telling the difference between the D&D god Ptah and the real god Ptah. I think we will need disambigation pages for all of these.
Alternatives to gods: Some D&D campaign settins had alternatives to deities (including the "immortals" from Mystara the "sorcerer kings" from Dark Sun and forces from the Complete Priest's Handbook). I think Kara-Tur also had a multi-deity faith called "The Path and The Way". In game terms, these work in a very similar way to deities so should have articles that follow a mostly identical format.
Pantheons: Pantheons need to have their own articles. Some of the pantheons are fairly big. They come in three types (these are not terms from D&D products): racial pantheons (linked to a specific non-human race), historical pantheons (from real life mythology) and campaign pantheons (from a specific campaign setting). Some gods are found in more than one pantheon (Oghma in the Faerunian and Celtic Pantheons and Celestian in the Greyhawk and Spelljammer Pantheons are examples). Articles need to be able to deal with gods that are in two or more pantheons. Because pantheons and gods are linked, I think it is vital that both topics have a similar format.
Alternate names: Many gods have operated under other names. I think that articles should be placed at the most common name and redirects placed at other names, but you might want to discuss specific gods before making a decision. The Clusterspace pantheon (from Spelljammer product The Astromundi Cluster) consisted of deities that all had false names, so might be a good example to look at.
Avatars: This idea seems to have been dropped from 3e, but was present in 2e. Avatars were bodies created by the gods. Forgotten Realms seems to now use "chosen" instead of "avatars". Articles need to show well known avatars or chosen of deties.
Big Mac 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The deities respective to a specific campaign setting should be handled by that setting's WikiProject. However, the "core deities" point is a bit of a question. Avatars I would add to the Deities and Demigods article, as that's the book where they're mentioned. Real-world deities used in D&D (Namely, those of Norse, Greco-Roman, and Egyptian mythos) should also be mentioned in the aforementioned article. Alternate names should be included in a template box off to the side, unless we're formally ditching the idea. Pantheons having their own articles crosses the line a bit into fancruft, I feel, so I'm against it, ESPECIALLY since this WikiProject deals with D&D as a whole, not individual campaign settings (in fact, pantheons of a specific setting SHOULD be handled by that setting's caretakers). Planescape experts? Get a Planescape WikiProject together, as it is a specific campaign setting, as are Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. All in all, good ideas, but some of them overstep our own bounds into those of other WikiProjects. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The campaign wikiprojects are overspecific. We should take care of it at this level. - Peregrinefisher 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Are you saying that this wikiproject should dictate what is and is not to be included on say, the Selûne, Beory, and Takhisis articles? I'm not comfortable sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and I'm sure the campaign-specific wikiprojects aren't comfortable with it, either. Even though we are the "parent" project of FR, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, et al, that doesn't give us the authority to tell them what to do. IMO, people unhappy with the way a particular wikiproject does things should work from within that wikiproject rather than trying to dictate from another.--Robbstrd 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the man to do it, but it seems like the campaign settings wikiprojects should be task forces that are part of this wikiproject. There aren't that many users in any of the projects; it would be good to combine everyone/thing here. I'm not saying tell them what to do, I'm saying have them join us. - Peregrinefisher 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We also must demonstrate some caution. We cannot include all material, just what summarizes and synthesizes various sources. Many of these D&D articles have already been described as "slow-motion copyvio". Suggestions for article format that functionally duplicate Deities and Demigods, Faiths and Pantheons, etc. will only lead to an eventual mass-AFD. Serpent's Choice 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D&D vs AD&D

I've noticed there is no distinction between the D&D and AD&D systems, and I'd like to include something about it in the history sections, if possible. Allegrorondo 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember top provide citations and sources to confirm your claim. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind! It looks like someone has done a lot of good work on it already, under Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. I'll see if I can add to that.Allegrorondo 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dire animals

I am currently rewriting the dire animal article, as I said I would elsewhere on this page. Apologies it has taken so long, I have had a trip away in the middle of it all. Just need a little help. Basically, I don't have the following books- Sandstorm, Monster Manual 2, [whatever the cold enviroment source book is called], Monster Manual 4, Monsters of Eberron and Monsters of Faerun. I would like to know whether any of these introduce dire animals of any sort. I know that Stormwrack, Fiend Folio and Masters of the Wild do, but I have these. I also know that the Monster Manual 3 does not introduce any. Also, if I have missed any books that introduce monsters, especially if there are dire animals, please tell me. All I need is the name of the animal, I am just listing non-core. Thanks all. J Milburn 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No matter, I forgot about the Wizards of the Coast consolidated lists! I have got them all here. J Milburn 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I finished the article. The project page says that we should try and get things on Did You Know?, do you think there is anything in this article that could qualify? Am I right in thinking that it is allowed, because it is a recently unstubbed article? J Milburn 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign Settings

No discussion about D&D can be complete without talking about campaign settings. The core setting is rarely used without a campaign setting and the 3rd edition of D&D relied on the Greyhawk campaign setting to supply information (like deities) that was previously missing from the game. Even if people would prefer to deal with this as a separate article, I would argue that it isn't possible. The two are so closely linked that a lot of information is meaningless in isolation.

I did a lot of work on the Spelljammer article when I first started editing and wanted to follow the formats of all the other campaign settings, but couldn't find a universal format at the time. I got quite a few comments about my editing at the time, because I couldn't find any guidlines for creation of D&D articles. The articles for subjects the various different campaign settings need to follow a standardised format (which should match core products), so I hope you will produce something that I can try to follow in the future.

One of the problems with campaign settings is that there are campaign settings placed inside other campaign settings. Kara-Tur, Maztica, Al-Quadim, The Horde and Arcane Age fit within the Forgotten Realms campaign world and Talidas fits on the back of the Dragonlance world. A couple of settings fit within the Mystara campaign setting: The Hollow World is one and I think the other one might be Savage Coast. So campaign settings need to have a format that allows them to slot inside each other.

Another problem is that there are a few crossover products that bridge the gap between two settings. Spelljammer and Planescape are the most obvious things here, as both can be used as bolt on products. An article about Realmspace is both a Spelljammer article and a Forgotten Realms article. And an article about any deity from any campaign setting is probably also just as relivant to Planescape.

You also need to make sure that all the campaign settings, no matter how small, get access to things like "this article is a stub" templates. So far it seems like the settings that are still published have more editors and better designed articles.

Big Mac 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I need help with the Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings article. The "3rd Party and Licensed Settings" section is full of things published under the Open Game Licence. Someone seems to think that anything with the OGL in it is D&D - this isn't true. I'm sure that most of these settings are not actually D&D settings (or settings that were licenced by WotC or TSR), however as I don't own all of these products I need some help to confirm that they are all things that do not belong here. Big Mac 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Kingdoms of Kalamar is officially licensed. (At least, they have the D&D logo on their products and I think we know WotC wouldn't allow that if they weren't. I don't think any of the rest are, though and can be chucked from the article. Cheers --Pak21 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. I also removed the non-official things from Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Cheers --Pak21 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D&D Stub Template

This currently has an image that looks a bit like 2d6, however they are so small you can't really tell they are rollplaying dice and not spot dice.

I think that a d20 would be more appropriate for D&D as all combat, skill check and saving throw rolls are made with a d20. Unless you have a weapon that does d6 worth of damage, you wouldn't necessarily use these dice.

While I'm talking about D&D stubs, can someone please tell me how to get a stub made for the Spelljammer campaign setting? I can't seem to find one anywhere.

Big Mac 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a d20 would be perfect for the stub. Can ordinary members change them, or do you have to be an admin? J Milburn 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a cropped version of this, with only the d20 showing? J Milburn 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Anybody can change the stub templates[1], so feel free. As for creating stub types, you can do this, but unless you've discussed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types first it's distinctly possible that it will be deleted.
[1] Sometimes templates (either stub or non-stub) are protected as they are transcluded into a large number of articles; modifying them would mean all the pages including them have to be re-generated, thus causing a high load on the Wikimedia servers, and acting as a possible DoS attack. Cheers --Pak21 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG-artwork

We need to come to a conensus on what types of images to include in our D&D pages. I noticed {{Template:RPG-artwork}} is being used on on these pages, mostly Dire animal (Dungeons & Dragons). If there is some way we can include images with the pages, it will really help the user/reader. I know Wikipedia:Fair use puts a bunch of restrictions on us: we can't hurt the business of D&D. Obviously, scanning the images from the books and listing the books' stats is illegal. What can we do? What can't we do? Discuss. - Peregrinefisher 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as bad as it sounds. All the images that I used when writing dire animal, and all my other D&D articles, are images that Wizards of the Coast are offering for free on their own website. It may even be worth contacting them, see if they will give permission, so that we aren't just 'presuming fair use'. As they offer the images themselves, I can't see them saying no. J Milburn 20:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not the way copyright works, unfortunately. The wizards.com site includes a Terms of Use section, which states:

The materials available through this Site are the property of Wizards and/or its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, licensees, or other respective owners. These materials are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Information received through this Site may be displayed, reformatted, and printed for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce or retransmit the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, with these exceptions only: You may make single copies of the materials available through this Site, solely for your personal, noncommercial use, and only if you preserve any copyright, trademark, or other notices contained in or associated with them. You may not distribute such copies to others, whether or not in electronic form, whether or not for a charge or other consideration, without prior written consent of the owner of the materials. Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials available through this Site should be mailed to: Legal Department, Attn: Usage Permissions Request, Wizards of the Coast, Inc., P.O. Box 707, Renton, WA 98057.

Wikipedia does not allow as fair use images that are licensed for noncommercial use only, so if we want to use any of the art gallery images from the wizards website, they will have to have a release on file with OTRS. Serpent's Choice 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So, technically, to use any of the images that I have done, I should have had written permission. Would it be advisable to write for permission? Even if it is, I wouldn't have thought that I was the best person to do that. J Milburn 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other option would be to make a fair use claim which is independent of the Terms of Use from the Wizards website. Cheers --Pak21 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what wizards says about using its images. Fair use is uneffected by this. The question is whether it is a fair use, and does it meet wikipedia's restrictions, which are more restrictive than just being fair use. We're supposed to minimize the use of unfree images. It's a gray area. - Peregrinefisher 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horde of hades

Coincidentially came across this article while new page patrolling. I know nothing about it, but it urgently needs looking at. I have also added it to our to-do list. Thanks. J Milburn 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it has been deleted now. I have invited the writer to the project. J Milburn 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster inclusion cutoff

We should consider developing cutoff criteria for monsters to earn inclusion as an article. We cannot simply create an article for every printed monster; beyond the copyvio issues that is likely to engender, that will quickly bring the whole lot to the attention of AFD. My initial suggestion would be that anything beyond the main MM is disqualified unless it has substantial coverage via modules, novels, or campaign setting material. Thus, warforged would get their article; ambush drake would not. Thoughts? Serpent's Choice 10:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea. As it sits, I have several Monster Manual II monsters on my watchlist. -Jeske (Mail goes here) 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good starting point to me. Cheers --Pak21 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, I'm not sure what you mean by "copyvio issues." An article about ambush drakes creates no more copyright issues than an article about, say, Uruk-hai. As for creating articles for every printed monster--I see no problem with it, as long as someone wants to do the work. Generally speaking, the more well-written an article is, the less likely it will be deleted. I'd rather see one good Fiend Folio monster article than 20 Monster Manual stubs. I see more problems with excluding monsters than not:
    • 1) Who's going to enforce it, & how so? Are you going to nominate every non-MM article that crops up for deletion? IMO, an editor's time is better spent creating & improving articles than playing "exclusionist officer."
    • 2)How does one determine what "substantial coverage" is? An appearance in a module? An "Ecology" article in Dragon? What about monsters that appeared in the 1E MM, but not 3.5, such as the thought eater or catoblepas? Overall, I think the project would be better served by improving & merging D&D articles than being exclusionists.--Robbstrd 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try to address my view on the above issues: (resetting indent for clarity)
  1. Copyright violation. Just reprinting or restating the information in a single source like a MM causes problems because then our encyclopedia then duplicates content from their encyclopedic "bestiary" works. Many creatures, especially in the lower-focus books, only have one source for information. That causes problems (and probably fails the WP:FICT guidelines, besides). Also, below.
  2. Enforcement. The onus of a Wikipedia Project is not just the glory of writing and improving articles in the project's sphere of influence, but removing ones that do not meet Wikipedia standards. If we cannot write anything more than, say, MM II says, then we cannot write an article. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing and making well-written articles better than deleting them, too. That's one reason for us to set some standards for what we try to include: it allows us to focus on the topics where well-written articles are possible.
  3. Content. The ideal article on a monster briefly discusses its real-world influence or development (with a see also to the longer article about the mythology when appropriate), outlines the uses of the creature in sources other than the bestiary books (has it appeared in D&D miniatures? in modules? in novels? in D&D movies or TV shows? -- the more removed from just monster-entry content, the better), and, yes, gives a brief discussion of the creature ... without resorting to game mechanics and without substantial duplication of the bestiary-book content. If there are any special things to discuss about the monster that are not from an in-universe perspective, that's good, too (noting which MM creatures are omitted from the SRD as brand identity, for example).

-- Serpent's Choice 05:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think grouping monsters together is the best option, when there are numerous similar monsters. Perhaps all goblinoids should be together, all dire animals together, and so on. As the fiction guidelines suggest, the bigger monsters can then have their own, bigger section in that article, whereas the other can just be listed, probably by book. J Milburn 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_cd1c.html"