Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons modules

message: This article is fairly large and is probably time to split it. There has been some debate earlier about splitting/renaming.
There previously was a general concesus this should only be for "official" TSR/WOTC modules because the list would get too long and complicated and difficult to define otherwise (Someone can start other lists of modules for these if they want in seperate articles)
Now that 3rd edition modules/adventures have been added I think these need to be split off into new article for a number of reasons:
1) With 3rd edition the game significantly changed and there was a distinct break in publications (Where 1st/2nd was much more of a transisiton with some module series crossing over that transition)
2) By 3rd edition I don't think the term modules was used anymore (though admittedly this was a general transition out through out 2nd edition)
3) 3rd edition modules continue to be published so these will be an growing list where previous will remain fairly static.
My suggestion is we seperate these 3rd edition listings into seperate article "List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures"
Comments Please
Waza 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes a lot of sense to keep the non-TSR / WotC material out of this article.  This should be for official, TSR and WotC modules (adventures) only.  Other articles can be used for non-TSR stuff.  I'm fine with splitting the current article into more than one, and if it is split, I agree that the 3rd Edition stuff makes the most sense to split off.  But I am worried that having a "List of Dungeons & Dragons modules" and a "List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures" articles with different content would be really confusing.  A lot of people use the terms interchangably, and as you said, TSR started using the term "adventures" before 3rd edition, so it wouldn't be a clean split by any means.  Maybe if the article does get split up, "List of Dungeons & Dragons modules (previous editions)" and "List of dungeons & dragons modules (3rd edition)" -- or something like that -- instead? Fairsing 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to Split?

message: As there has ben no discussion or no replacement of the generic clean up tag for over 4 months I propose it is removed. I am not saying this article will not benefit from some more work but I can't see the point of this tag and it looks like no one else can either - Waza 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks latter still no reason why clean up tag is needed. I am removing, please put back on with an explaination as to why. Waza 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up?

message: I generated this list from an online resource and heavily modified it. There may be some errors or omissions. If you see any, please fix 'em. But most of all, please write an article on your favorite module! :^D. The link at the bottom has tons of information on most of the modules. —Frecklefoot 21:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I added a slew of module cover scans. I got permission from the source web site ("The Acaeum": http://www.acaeum.com/). I tried to add one per table section, but that left some disappointing gaps, noticably at the end of "D" and the "E" sections. I didn't know how to get the images to format one underneath another, so unless someone else does, I guess we'll have to live with them. I'm not married to the format—if you have some better ideas, please implement them. —Frecklefoot 03:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I have a bunch of these, guess I should write 'em up.... Stan 05:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Infobox template is now created.  See Template_talk:DnDmodule for details on how to use.
Original discussion moved to Template:DnDmodule/Original-Creation-Talk  Wendell 04:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box Proposal 

message: I question whether these modules should be included in this list are they were not generally available modules published by TSR. The R and RPGA modules were only available at conventions or as magazine inserts (some only to DM's at conventions) and most have been repackaged and rebulished as other modules already in the list. All other modules on the list were widely available official modules, but these are not.
*R1-4 were combined to make I12
*RPGA1-2 were combined to make B7
*RPGA3-8 were combined to make C4 & C5
*R4 & 5 were inserts in RPGA Mag
*R7-10 were tornament modules only and only one copy has ever been known to be available for sale to the public --Waza
:I'm fine with it, as long as they were available in other forms.  The articles on them should probably mention that they are a repackaged version of the scarce modules.  Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::I think that's why it's important they ARE placed in here.  It's not a list of commercially available modules, it's a list of published modules, right?  If they're not listed here, it's an incomplete list...--RYard 02:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong about the availability of the modules --- they were available to all RPGA members by mail order.  Anyway, RYard is right: the scarity of those modules probably makes them more notable, not less. Collectors, especially, talk about them more than most of the modules Wikipedia does list. Michael Bauser 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete R and RPGA Series modules?

message: I started this page several months ago, but dropped out a few weeks ago.  But I've been noticing something in the great new articles that are being created.  There seems to be an inconsistent manner for marking up the titles of modules; sometimes they are italicized, sometimes they "are quoted" and sometimes they are given no markup at all.  My opinion—and the way I marked up the few module articles I wrote—is to quote module names.  This is consistent with TV series, for example.  Friends is italicized, but the titles of individual episodes are in quotes.  Dungeons & Dragons is italicized, it makes sense to quote modules.
Also, the linked modules in the infoboxes should be given wikilinks for easy access to linked modules, even if no article exists yet. Just MHO... :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: There are missing sample covers in the following tables:
* CA - City of Adventure
* CB - Conan the Barbarian
* CM - CoMpanion
* DLC - DragonLance Classics
* DS(Q/E) - Dark Sun (Quest/Epic)
* FA - Forgotten Realms Adventure
* FM - Forgotten Realms Maztica
* FRA - Forgotten Realms Adventure
* FRC - Forgotten Realms Companion
* FRE - Forgotten Realms Epic
* FRM - Forgotten Realms Mission
* FROA - Forgotten Realms Oriental Adventures
* FRQ - Forgotten Realms Quest
* FRS - Forgotten Realms Sourcebook
* G - Giants
* GA
* GAZ - GAZetteer
* IM - Immortal
* N
* O - One on one
* OA, OP
* T
* U
* X - eXpert series
That is a lot of blank cells and makes a lot of the table in this article look strange. I noticed that someone has deleted this column and added a separate image on the following tables:
* DA - Dave Arneson
* H - The Bloodstone Pass Saga
* L - Lendore Isles
I think that this way of doing things looks much better than the first way and would suggest that all those empty image columns are removed and series of modules with pictures are done the second way.
Big Mac 12:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Big Mac on images out of the table. The big advantage to me is we don't need a sample cover for every series as this would cause the small series to take up too much space. We can then also make sure the cover samples display the range of cover styles that have been produced rather than forcing one to just each series. Waza 00:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Sample covers 

message: There are a lot of empty table cells in this article that are not displaying the boarders properly. This is down to the way browsers work - cells need to have something in them. The normal way to avoid the cell looking strange is to add a non-breaking-space character. I've been going through the article and adding these myself (where they are missing) but if anyone else adds a table, please can they add them to empty cells at the same time.
The way to get a non-breaking-space is to type an ampersand '&' then type 'nbsp' then type a semi-colon ';' do not put any spaces between them. This will then give the browser something to fill the empty cells with.
Big Mac 12:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty table cells in this article 

message: I started this article long ago, but I have since left it in the hands of the more capable and knowledgable.  Stumbling across it again today, I noticed some glaring image alignment problems that made the page look really--"icky."  I experimented with a fix by placing the image within the table.  To my surprise, I really liked the way it looked (if someone reverts it, see what it looked like here, scroll down to AC1).  I suggest we embed all the images we have within the tables.  It would fix any further alignment problems and would give cover illustrations inline with the list.  Just a suggestion... — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know there is going to be any best way to do this. Yes your suggestion does "tidy" thins up a little in terms of look, its big disadvantage is that it spreads the article vastly vertically. This I feel is a big diadvantage making it harder to scroll down through the article. It also even speads the individual code sections making it harder to compare those in the same section. Also if you have a very small screen, the current layout brings the pictures in above the text and narrows the table so it all can be view, but your suggestion forces the table to be wider meaning a horizontal scroll needs to be done to see the whole table. I have no understanding of what you mean by making the page look "icky". I won't say the current solution is perfect but I feel it has vast advantages over what you are proposing - Waza 00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image placement

message: While thie artile list modules, many of the articles linked to are non existant, stubs, or very poorly written. Currently none of the module articles are good or Featured Articles. As an help to those interested improving articles about modules I thought it would be good to list some of the best module articles here until as such time we have some examples of good and featured articles. Maybe some of those listed will become the first of these. I will list a couple here soon, please add any appropriate ones to my list. - Waza 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of the best Module Articles

message: :Image:RS1ModuleCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the flag.  I'm pretty sure BetacommandBot malfunctioned in this case because a fair use rationale is present for the image. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RS1ModuleCover.jpg

message: I see that someone complained about all the cover images used in the article.  As far as I know, using them is considered fair use, but I am not an expert. I thought I made that clear when I uploaded them in the first place.  I got them from a website by permission, mentioned in the image justification page. I am tired of trying to justify the use of images I upload, and am not going to attempt it anymore.  If anyone feels so inclined, please go to the image pages and try to fix whatever is wrong with them.  Κaiba seems to have some experience with this type of thing and may be able to assist. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for images

message: Why doesn't CM9 have a broken wikilink (it has no wikilink at all)?  Broken wikilinks are fine—they encourage other editors to create articles for them.  I assume there are other modules without articles that have no wikilinks either.  Is there some rational for not having them? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I created the article, fixed up everything that should've been pointing to it. The article could use a cover image, however. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no broken wikilink?

message: A lot of the articles for these modules aren't even proper articles (for example, they contain no lead-in text, contain empty subsections, have no refs, even when plenty are easily available online).  I'm going through and fixing up what I can.  I'm even changing the format a little, but I don't think anyone should find my changes objectionable.  So far I've fixed CM1-CM8 and CB1 & CB2. If you have a problem with what I'm doing, please say so here. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up

message: Why is it listed as generic when it set in The Known World (later known as Mystara)?  REL 10 October 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.151.194 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: B2 Setting

message: I've put the level range for CM5: Mystery of the Snow Pearls back to 15-25, based on the cover's description of it being for Companion level adventurers, and the Companion book covering levels 15-25.  The adventure comes with a default solo PC, and that PC is a 10th level elf, but I believe it's a 10th level elf with the "it's not a level, but it's something" bonuses that demihumans got instead of proper levels past a certain point.  The module suggests that it can be run for a group, in which case it's a companion level game and thus 15-25.  I'm sympathetic to the counter argument; it's a shame that demihuman "levels" are weird in old D&D, it complicates something as simple as describing appropriate levels. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of CM5: Mystery of the Snow Pearls 

message: The ST series (of one) is given the name "Stoke-on-Trent".  According to Tomb Of Treasures  ST is derived from "Steam Train" (as one is featured in the module). I don't see a Stoke-on-Trent connection (the Convention for which this module was written was held in London).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.31.147 (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To correct my post above, the National Garden Festival was held in Stoke-on-Trent in 1986 according to Wikipedia "Stoke-on-Trent Garden Festival" entry.  The festival site featured a steam train, and the module was based on the festival site.  So 'ST' could refer to either Steam Train or Stoke-on-Trent, perhaps both?  Credibility of the Tomb Of Treasures reference?  Clarification from the author?  Sawatts (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ST Series Name 

message: AC1 - AC11 were one series. "AC" stood for "Accessory."
AC1010 - AC1012 were a different series. "AC" stood for "After Coronation." Those codes were actually calendar years in the Mystaran calendar, in the "After Coronation" era of the Thyatian imperial calendar, which the Known World setting uses.
They ought to be separated into two different blocks in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AC (Accessory series) is not the same as AC (After Coronation) series