Talk:Dungeons & Dragons controversies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. |
||||||
|
|||||||
I really have no interest in developing this article at this time, I hope someone else does. The reason I have created it is preople keeps insisting on expanding this section in the main Dungeons and Dragons article, and the only way I can see to get the D&D article down below the 32 KB Wikkipedia recommendation is to spin this section off into it's own article and drastically reduce the section in D&D. - Waza 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Right, ill take over from here then, when I have the time. Piuro 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Israeli Army section -- I've made a minor change to the section on the Israeli army, so it no longer indicates that all soldiers play D&D. 216.196.140.138 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overhaul
I didn't intend to overhaul the article, but it seems I have. Here's what I did:
- Added a section for Pulling, summarizing her and BADD's activities in short, based on her article
- Grouped all psychological controversy into its own section
- Re-worded intro for clarity and per WP:MoS
- Linked some terms like "media" that really needed context
- other minor edits where I spotted a need
Work that still needs to be done:
- Find (perhaps from what we already have) cites for the intro
- Cover some of the other essays that have been written. I love the Britannica quote from Confessions of a Dungeons & Dragons™ Addict], and would like to incorporate it reasonably here, as it happens to apply equally to Wikipedia.
- Reduce some of the redundancy between the lead blurb in the religious section and the sub-sections without losing any context.
- Research other suits brought against or by TSR/Wizards surrounding D&D. Incorporate info as needed and relevant to the overall topic, here.
That's all I can think of for now. Enjoy! -Harmil 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Importance
I wish I could edit my edit summaries... sigh. I called this importance "High" based on the policy which says that articles which contribute substantial knowledge to a topic but aren't quite essential for a print encyclopedia should be in that category. My edit summary set Mid. Doh. -Harmil 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overlap with History of role-playing games
There seems to be a fair overlap between this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy. Someone should carefully check that material is in the correct article and sections are cross linked where appropriate. - Waza 05:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if we shouldn't merge this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy into a new article called Controversies in Role-playing Games or similar, with a section on the D&D-specific stuff. Two cross-linked articles can cover neither topic well - or at least not elegantly. BreathingMeat 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats sounds like a good approach to me, if anyone has the time and inclination please do it - Waza 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I took a stab at merging the two articles today. Let me know what you think. History of role-playing games edit Dungeons & Dragons controversies edit -Harmil 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
