Talk:List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
List	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Dragonlance
This article is part of WikiProject Dragonlance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Dragonlance universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

List

This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

[edit] This article has been taken over, making a new sub article

DoomsDay349 it is disappointing that you see laziness (could not be bothered reading the whole discusson) as an exuse not to pay attention to the opionions of others and have taken this article off in a totally different direction than what was intended. The one thing in favour of your direction is that it does suit the title of the article better than what was there before. I was hoping to await concensus on an article name before relocating the article we agreed we were trying to write (all this is discussed int he part you refuse to read), but instead I will do it now taking the info we want and linking from the relevant section of your article. You can then do what you want with this article - Waza 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What have I done aside from attempt to create a workable format for this article? I've never objected to splitting it. The only thing I did was create workable shells. And I really don't appreciate what your message is implying, so I would strongly consider watching the tone of messages in the future. This could have been construed as a personal attack, and trust me, I don't take kindly to personal attacks. Dooms Day349 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked your new article. All you've done is disregard my formats and repost the article as it was before I edited. Do you realize the sort of message that sends to me? I'll tell you what it doesn't; it doesn't tell me you respect or appreciate me. Judge your actions carefully from now on. Dooms Day349 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And another thing. All you've done is create a page that you clearly intend for me to have absolutely no influence on. This is not acceptable. This is so ridiculously plain in the fact that you have complete reposts of material here. All you have done is erase all of my work. Now excuse me if reading several pages doesn't appeal to me. But that isn't even the case. All I did was create workable shells that you wholly disregarded! I've half a mind to simply redirect this new article. Dooms Day349 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the way you use the words "your article" and "our article" are so against the fundamentals of Wikipedia that I cannot believe you are serious. This is not my article, and if you refuse to even attempt to work within or around and discuss the changes made before creating an independent redundancy, that's no reason to derail the efforts and create a completely identical article on another page you intend to work with. Dooms Day349 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

DoomsDay349 I do respect your right to imput and influence. However I don't respect your decision to make bold edits clearly going against previous concensus on the talk page just because "OK, so, there's no way you'll get me to read everything here". To summaries the disussion we had agreed we were wrting an article about the DL series of Dragonlance modules, and having come to that concensus agreed the title was not appropriate and were discussing what we whould move the article to. You came in and started adding a whole pile of information that is appropriate to this article title, but not where we intended to move the article to once agreement was reached.

What I have done is simple moved the previous information without your additions to one of the proposed new titles we were discussing a move to. This allows you space to expand this article, and you have already started doing, to a full lit of dragonlance modules and sourcebooks.

Of course the first step of the new article is to move relevant information to the new article. The leader and seques section I wrote are totally appropriate to the new name, but will need to be heavily edit to apply correctly to here. You may modify them or start again on this article as you fell appropriate.

I appologise for my use of some terms. I admit I was angry, and still somewhat am, about how you have gone about this but that was no excuse for me to use inappropriate language. I simply ment we are trying to create different articles and I believe wikipedia has a place for both of them. One of them I am interested in contributing to, the other I am not at this stage. I am sorry I did not put this clearer in my previous comment. You are welcome to contribute to both article. We may in the end change to something similar to what you did (Which was similar to one, but actually neither of the proposals so far presented) However I would ask you respect the process of concensus on something that is clearly a matter of current debate. - Waza 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points, and perhaps it was a mistake in my phrasing of how I said I wasn't going to read all of that which was said. I've grown into a very bold person and adhere to the policies of WP:BOLD strictly. You'll note I have removed redundant information from the new article as it is already contained wholly within this article. Consider rephrasing, and in order for a presentation of uniformity, I would go with a set up we both agree on. This said, what form do you believe works? I obviously am fond of the way I have done this, but I respect your input on the matter. Please to be continuing the discussion. Dooms Day349 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad despite obvious emotions neither of us are taking this personally in the end. I think for this article you suggested format works (there is no need for pictures other than perhaps a few examples of types here) For the other article I am pushing for the info box, but I think even it if that is not the final concensus it will have at least pictures of each module. As for redundancy of information. The general references of the references section (not notes) should be redundant. The leader and the Sequels section are mostly my work and written with the other article in mind, I believe they need to be re-written here, and not primarily on the other article. The individual module info probably needs re-doing on both, sumarising here and expanding there. Right now the long grass and the wife, is calling to me to start up the mower so I won't do any of these edits right now, but that is my opinion. - Waza 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it's all very good and well, I hope. I too ought be taking a break from this headache that's setting in. Hopefully we'll figure something out soon. Dooms Day349 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's talk about this page

Let's not get sidetracked by all the moving of text. Let's talk about how to make this a good page. This page should have smaller summaries of each of its books, with links to any larger versions on other pages. Since Dragonlance modules (DL series) is being made right now, we should figure out what this page should contain about each of those modules. It looks like this page will have about 50 books, so I don't think we can include an infobox for each. Haven't thought about it much, but we could do something like:

DL1 Dragons of Despair: Main article: Dragons of Despair

Author: Tracy Hickman
First published: 1984
Character levels: 4 - 6
Description: Dragons of Despair is the start of the first major story arc in the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance series of game modules. It is one of the 14 Dragonlance adventures published by TSR between 1984 and 1986.

Basically we need to think what will fit when we multiply it by 50. I don't think an image for everyone will fit nicely, maybe an image for every fifth entry. I removed the image discussion and plot summary, since the image wouldn't be there, and if we give people a place to add summary, they'll make it too big. Certain things like Rules required and Campaign setting don't change within the series, so we don't need it each time. We can just mention it at the beginning of each larger section. The whole page may be just one campaign setting, also, so that can be mentioned once at the top. Whatever does change from module to module should be included, like year, code, and author. Just some ideas to get things started. - Peregrine Fisher 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all one campaign setting, Dragonlance. I like keeping summary in there, as not everyone might want to page jump from this to the other page. I agree on images. Character level I find to be a bit of extraneous information, and it's hard to find anyway, so I recommend keeping it out. Dooms Day349 23:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can just copy what Dragonlance modules (DL series) says, while removing a few things like cover art description. Although the cover info for DL4 is pretty interesting and maybe should be included. - Peregrine Fisher 00:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated before my main interest at this time with dragonlance is on Dragonlance modules (DL series) article at this time. However my one comment on this is to select the images used carefully rather than just a random selection. Try to include any particularly noteable covers whether they be because of what/who is shown on it, or an example of a noteable/new layout/style/logo etc. - Waza 03:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just added in the Dragonlance Adventure's sourcebook (arguably the first sourcebook ever if you don't count DL5) and I found difficulty finding the appropriate place to include the ISBN. Could there be a standard place to include this as it is valuable information for anyone trying to track doen a copy of a book they are looking for. On a normal article it would be in the reference section but on such as long list as this if every book is listed as a reference then the reference list will be far too long. - Waza 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We can add ISBN as a parameter for the listings. It's a good idea. Dooms Day349 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does the lead really need?

I've cut down the lead a good bit, because most of it was concerning other stuff. What do we need to include in the lead? Is one sentence really enough? In addition, what do we need to have starting each section header, if anything? Dooms Day349 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragonlance_modules_(DL_series)#Early_History has some text that should probably go in the lead. Then a ref saying the modules (and maybe novels) drove TSR to create a whole campaign setting with lots of books would be good, if it exists. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to find such a ref, so I don't know about that. But I'll go for the other section. Dooms Day349 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one we already have says something like that, see here. - Peregrine Fisher 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's it trying to say, so if you could add in where you feel it's appropriate that would be great. Dooms Day349 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)