Talk:Player's Handbook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] Image
Like with the Monster Manual article, this one would benefit from an image of the cover of the book. One or two shots of internal illustrations would be cool too (all covered under fair use). Anyone have any of these? —Frecklefoot 16:17, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It just so happens... :-) and the Dungeonmaster's Guide too, before you ask. :-) Stan 17:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Boy, you're on top of things—I guess I can stop asking now! :-) But I'll pester you one more time for any scans of internal illustrations—they were generally my favorite. But any images are better than none. Thanks, man. —Frecklefoot 18:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Article Title
When I first created this article, I named it Player's Handbook (with an apostropher 's'). After researching it a bit, I discovered the correct title is Players Handbook (no apostrophe). However Gtrmp moved it (and Dungeon Masters Guide) back to the apostrophized version with no comment. Since I beleive that version is incorrect, I have moved it back.
If you think it should be the apostrophized version, please discuss why. The included scan shows it as the version without the apostrophe. —Frecklefoot 16:29, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The current edition is spelt with an apostrophe. See: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030705a and http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030711a . Ausir 16:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well then (thanks, BTW). How do we decide what to call them then? The scans provided are of the old version which uses the name Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide. However, the articles are about all the versions of the book. I guess we could have two seperate articles for the book (one for the old, one for the new), but I don't think that's the right approach (the wrong version will get linked to often, I'm sure). I'm kinda leaning towards keeping them without the apostrophes since that are the versions we have artwork for. What think ye? —Frecklefoot 16:55, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I think we should use the apostrophes since they are used in the most recent editions, so these versions are more likely to be looked for. Ausir 17:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- I vote for newer editions, with apostrophe, since by default we favor current names over historical ones, and of course include discussion of the variations in the article. Older editions are charmingly amateur productions, and confusion about proper punctuation is of a piece with the crude drawings, funky typography, etc. :-) Stan 17:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'll move them back and include discussion (and make sure all references in article to the book include the apostrophe). It'll be a few minutes, but I'll handle it. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:48, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Not Just D&D
There's more than one Player's Handbook, just as there's more than one bible - for example, there's the Marvel Player's Handbook, and every TV show has a bible. Shouldn't this article be about the general idea of a Player's Handbook (that is, information specifically for players) as opposed to one particular game's various Handbooks? If not, then don't mind the newbie and feel free to ignore. Elemental Knight 00:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, there are more than one Player's Handbooks, but we don't have articles about any of them. This was a notable book, recognized by an entire generation of geeks and other types of gamers. Once we have an article about any other type of player's handbooks, we can disambiguate them and provide a link to this article.
- By the way, in the case of the general "player's handbook" you describe, the article would be capitalized "Player's handbook" (wikipedia demands that the first letter of an article be capitalized). The second word would not be capitalized, but this one is since that was the title of this book. If you really want to create an article about the general idea of a player's handbook, you're still free to, without clashing with this article. But I doubt you could find enough to say about the subject past a stub. :-S Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
HumanJHawkins 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC): More importantly than that, this is an article under the category of Dungeons & Dragons books. If there is a (for example) golf player's handbook, then it should be written about ins a seperate article under golf.
- If the article's name is changed to D&D Players Handbook, then this is a fine article. Otherwise the general contents of PHBs in RPGs should be defined. How different games seperate core rules, GM rules, etc. is a good topic. Mathiastck 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The D&D Player's Handbook is the most notable book with this title. Moreover, until there are articles on other player's handbooks, there is no need to disambiguate. --GentlemanGhost 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
