Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: 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)
replies: text: My Userbox ideas are below.  Please let me know what you think.  --Everchanging02 09:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. -Jeske (v^_^v) 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Im completely remaking this to fit more with the theme, don't worry. Piuro 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quasi-fixed.  Looking into the borders stuff. --Everchanging02 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WikiProject Userbox

message: ====Variant #1====
====Variant #2====
: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)
replies: text: Im completely remaking this to fit more with the theme, don't worry. Piuro 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quasi-fixed.  Looking into the borders stuff. --Everchanging02 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: D&D Template

message: :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)
replies: text: Im completely remaking this to fit more with the theme, don't worry. Piuro 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quasi-fixed.  Looking into the borders stuff. --Everchanging02 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Variant #2

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the Breath Weapon article has chenged since you brought this issue up but it looks fine to me. Although it does mention the breath weapon type and shape it doesn't give the exact size of a cone or the amount of damage it does. The fact that D&D dragons all have different types of breath weapon is a feature of how they are implemented in D&D. I'd say it is definately fluff. However, you could argue that Breath Weapon should be merged into an article about all D&D dragons (with this page becoming a redirect page). I know that Draconians (from Dragonlance) have breath weapons, but they are dragon spawn. How many non-dragon monsters have a breath weapon?Big Mac 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Hell hounds have a BW.  I'm sure there's more.  Isn't there a wolf that breaths frost?  Anyways, I made the BW page a while back because the term was used but not explained in the main Dragon page.  The Dragon page was pretty big, and I didn't see a good spot for it, so I created a new page.  I've since moved all the specific dragons off to pages like List of Chromatic dragons so it could probably be merged.  The specifics of what dragon has what BW is now in the List of XXX dragons pages so it could be omitted. - Peregrine Fisher 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Mechanics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Book List Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: Remember top provide citations and sources to confirm your claim. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  D&D vs AD&D 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dire animals 

message: 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 Taladas 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. I also removed the non-official things from :Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Cheers --Pak21 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign Settings

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Horde of hades]] 

message: The monster template given on the main page seems doomed to create in-universe articles that fail WP:FICTION and WP:WAF horribly.  The most important part is information relevant outside the game world, and only enough information from inside it as is useful to understanding the monster's importance or position in the game. Most of this stuff seems like trivia, though, or something that could be summarized into a couple sentences without losing anything over full sections. The reproductive habits of Githyanki aren't something we need to report in detail. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It kind of sounds like we should make pages for all the minor monsters and redirect them to appropriate lists of monsters pages.  This way we can cover the monsters and stop cruft, all at once. - Peregrinefisher 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not yet convinced that there is any real value in having "Lists of monsters pages" at all. Either a monster has had non-trivial exposure outside of Dungeons & Dragons, in which case we can write a verifiable, out of universe article on it, or it hasn't, in which case, why is it here? While I know that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information either. Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can either take control of all D&D monsters and their pages, or we can allow people to slowly create pages for every monster ever listed (Create 3, delete 2, repeatedly).  I think this is the time to organize it.  If you delete some obscure monster's page, it gets recreated.  If you assign them a small part of a list, it's easy for someone (like you or me) to keep our eye on what's going on, and delete cruft.  - Peregrinefisher 08:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly sure I like an argument which is essentially "we can't control this, so let's settle for second-best" but as I don't have a better solution to this at the moment... Cheers --Pak21 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some nonnotables on my watchlist.  How should we do the lists?-Jeske (Mail goes here) 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is best to list them in articles about other, similar monsters, where that is possible. J Milburn 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A template that list the source books sounds like a really good idea.  Have we started such a template?  If not, we could copy something like Template:Infobox Television episode and rename the fields to D&D related info. - Peregrinefisher 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster information 

message: There has been the mass deletion of the images tagged with the RPG-artwork fair use rationale. All of the images in the galleries on the Wizards of the Coast website have been deleted, and the images of the models have been tagged with 'no source' and 'no rationale', so could well be deleted soon. I am rather irritated that no one told me that so many of the images I uploaded were nominated as copyright violations, but what is done is done. I think it is time we contact Wizards of the Coast to ask permission. I think that there is a reasonable chance that they will say yes. Here are some relevent pages- Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 29/Images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 July 6/Images. It should also be noted that it was said in these places about how the RPG-art tag is considered a poor tag, and needs to be rewritten. I can eliminate the need for providing rationale and source for the models by taking pictures of my own models, but I own only a small amount of the models that I have uploaded. However, I should be able to boost the articles that are relevent to the models I do have. J Milburn 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that an RPG fair use tag is going to work.  The problem is that for fair use to be justified, the use can in no way hurt the owner financially.  The problem with D&D monsters is they come from basically a bunch of monster encyclopedias.  People buy them for the stats, the descriptions, and the images.  If we give away the images, it actually could hurt their sales. - Peregrinefisher 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming the photos you're intending to take are of WotC models, that does not eliminate the need for a fair use rationale. See :commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook. Cheers --Pak21 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional thought: on the other hand, it's probably going to be easier to make a fair-use rationale for photos (or for that matter, the original image) of minis: you're not going to be affecting the market for the minis in the same way as you could be affecting the market for the Monster Manual. I'd suggesting running this by some of the more informed areas on Wikipedia before uploading too many images, though... Cheers --Pak21 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would almost certainly be acceptable fair use, if uploaded with the proper tag and with a detailed fair use rationale, to illustrate an article talking about the miniature or as a representative image of the miniatures set or game in general.  I am less certain about the applicability of D&D Miniatures images being used to illustrate the tabletop D&D creatures or characters that they represent.  Serpent's Choice 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I understand,gaining permission for using images on Wikipedia alone is not good enough, as Wikipedia advocates allowing the use of its information by third parties.--Robbstrd 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct: . There is absolutely no chance that WotC will allow their images to be used for commercial purposes, so there's honestly no point in asking. --Pak21 07:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is irritating. I guess the only possible images will be the front covers of books and miniatures then. However, what fair use rationale should I add to the images of the miniatures? It is not something I have done before, or would know how to do. On the other hand, what about images of miniatures I have taken myself? I own some miniatures, surely I would be able to take pictures of my own miniatures, then release those pictures to be allowed on Wikipedia? J Milburn 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general,  is probably the best thing for pictures of miniatures. As for taking pictures of your own miniatures, you can do it and release the photo under any license you like, but you must remember that you are still creating a derivative work of some of WotC's intellectual property, and as such can be used only under fair use guidelines on Wikipedia. You may wish to see :Image:Ultramarines Dreadnought.jpg for how I have licensed such an image in the past. Cheers --Pak21 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miniature images aren't going to work; for fair use the article would have to significantly discuss the miniature itself, not just the corresponding DnD monster.  Personally, I would love having an image on all the monster pages, but I don't think fair use covers that.  It's too close to recreating the WotC books, and could effect their sales, which ruins the fair use argument. The rule we're butting up against is #2 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy.  I believe an image of a monster on the cover of a book, provided the book cover is discussed, is one of the few ways that a DnD monster page can justify FU.  For instance, one DnD monster page that I added an image to is Red dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) (note the discussion of the book covers).  Obviously, this will only work with a limited number of monsters, basically the most famous.  Another one to check out is Githyanki. - Peregrinefisher 22:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always draw our own pictures. There's a lovely Beholder, for instance, on Talk:Beholder which doesn't violate fair use AFAIK. BreathingMeat 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that violate No Original Research? Neutral Point of View? That wouldn't be what it officially does look like- only official WotC merchandise can say what it does actually looks like, surely? What are the laws on copying other peoples' images? As in, one of us drawing a picture out of the Monster Manual ourselves? God, that wouldn't work... I am clutching at straws... J Milburn 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User drawn images of DnD monsters would be considered derivative works, and would have the same fair use issues. - Peregrinefisher 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there are a large number of webcomics and other unofficial illustrated content on the Internet featuring Mind Flayers and Beholders suggests that it might be worth writing to WotC and asking them if we can include our own illustrations of D&D monsters. BreathingMeat 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of monsters that are used by both Wizards of the Coast and other companies. Some monsters like elves, dwarves and centaurs predate D&D and there must be alternate images for these that are not based on WotC material. If someone can obtain permission from another source to use fantasy images would there be any problem with using a non-D&D image that just happens to fit in well with a D&D creature. The image would not be a derivative work and it would only be the wiki-editors that had connected the two works. I've even seen lead figures that look very similar to creatures like mind flayers, so they could also be dealt with if you could get permission to use artwork. Big Mac 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass deletion (of images) 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Isn't Draconomicon and Savage Species 3.5e books? They are categorized as 3e on all pages I've seen, including the D&D Books template, and the List of prestige classes article. Kilmax yath 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Savage Species is indeed 3E, but I'm not certain on Draconomicon. -Jeske (Complaints Dept.) 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mea culpa on Draconomicon, I've corrected the template and PrC list references.  As for the "Pi Edition" books (Savage Species and Fiend Folio), we really don't have any choice but to list them as 3.0, because they were released before 3.5.  They are hybrid-rules books, however, and Wizards made some public comments about that, which should be cited and placed in the articles for those books.  Serpent's Choice 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TSR did something similar to this just before AD&D 2nd Edition came out. Greyhawk Adventures is a Advanced Dungeons & Dragons book that states "Compatible with the AD&D and the 2nd Edition AD&D Game Systems". If these books have a similar declaration printed anywhere on (or in) them then perhaps it would be correct to list them as both 3.0 and 3.5. Big Mac 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3e or 3.5e books? 

message: I have an idea to help clean up this mess.  Let me run it down.  First, we have already merged G1, G2, and G3 into Against the Giants.  D1 and D2 have been merged into Descent into the Depths of the Earth. D3 is a stand alone, under Vault of the Drow, and finally, Q1 is Queen of the Demonweb Pits. All nine of these modules (including re-released versions) were eventually merged into GDQ1-7 Queen of the Spiders, an article that has yet to be written. What I am proposing is merging all four entries under this one title. I would like to be the one to do this project.
How am I qualified? Well, in addition to playing through each of these modules as a player and then later as a DM, I own every single version, including re-released versions, of the entire series. Second, I like to think I am pretty good at putting stuff together.  Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars is an example of my work. As I did with that project, I would work on the consolidated article first, and wait for a few of the wikiproject members to sign off on it before we start with the redirects.  So, any comments on this?  Turlo Lomon 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose to deal with WP:WAF for all this? At the moment, there's very little content in the articles anyway that isn't verging on being indiscrimiate information, the "Critical reception" section in Q1 being the notable exception. --Pak21 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it should be handled like any article on a book. We could also show differences between the editions.  There is a great storyline for the entire series. Turlo Lomon 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Merging sounds like a good idea. However, I think infoboxes for each module in the series should be included as well as for GDQ1-7.--Robbstrd 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The individual works still need to be recognized. Unless anyone has any objections, I can start work on this project later tonight. This would consist of writing the Queen of the Spiders article, without any redirects, etc. until everyones concerns are addressed and the article i finalized.  Turlo Lomon 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There will be more text added. I was just experimenting with different styles right now. Actually, it is a rather fun experiment. I'll give a reply here when it is more article worthy. I'm stuck working 10 days straight and it has cut into my time. Turlo Lomon 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GDQ1-7

message: I've made what I think is a good start on an infobox for D&D creatures.  I'm going to start adding it to some pages, so please be BOLD and adjust the template, or request any changes or additions you would like.  Here's what it looks like for satyr.
- Peregrine Fisher 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox D&D creature]] 

message: I created a template too go at the bottom of creature pages.  Here's what is it looks like currently:
Feel free to be bold and modify it, or make requests here.  There's so many creatures that I just included pages that are lists of creatures.  If you know of any other lists, please add them.  We may want to add "Notable creatures" or something to list for the most important creatures like Beholder.  You can also check out Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) to see this template, and the above infobox, all on one page. - Peregrine Fisher 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!--Robbstrd 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:D&D creatures]] 

message: I've seen the previous suggestions for a userbox for this WikiProject, and as there is still none in use, I suggest one of these that I have set up. A fitting image can be discussed and created later.</br>
</br>
</br>
Please tell me what you think. --Ifrit 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice.  I don't use userboxes anymore because they mess up my weirdly formatted user page, but otherwise I would definately use the second one.  What's cool is that most projects can't put a good image in their userboxes because of copyright issues, but D&D looks right, and I don't think it's a copy vio. - Peregrine Fisher 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is the one to go with, as D&D is a title of a product line and should be capitalised. D&D lets people know that you are talking about Dungeons and Dragons, so I don't think that you can make any improvements. You should move or delete the lower case version so that the better can have a filename that doesn't include the number 2. Then stick instructions about how to use it on the main D&D WikiProject page. Big Mac 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.--Ifrit 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done... I also tried to fix all the stuff with categories so that userbox automatically adds the pages it is put on to "Category:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons participants", but right now {User WPDND} won't do that, but {Template:User WPDND|User WPDND} does... can anyone help me fix that? --Ifrit 15:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject userbox 

message: I moved Template:Project D&D to Template:D&D and added stuff for quality assessment and importance assessment.  I basically just copied the template that the Film wikiproject uses.  I'm going to try and get all the cats created, and add stuff to the project page explaining it.  Here's what it looks like:  
- Peregrine Fisher 05:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed on Template talk:D&D some of the optional fields avaiable in this template do not work. Does anyone here have any knowledge about how to fix these? - Waza 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  D&D template 

message: For legal reasons it's hard to have stats and images, 2 of the 3 things (along with description) that matter with D&D creatures.  I've found a workaround of sorts.  I've added fields to the D&D creature infobox that will allow us to link to images and stats at wizards.com.  Again, for legal reasons, I made it very wizards.com oriented by naming the fields wizards_image_URL and wizards_stats_URL, instead of just image_URL and stats_URL.  Basically, it's against policy (or illegal) to link to websites that publish these images and stats without wizards.com permission.  Anyways, here's how it looks for Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons):
- Peregrine Fisher 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the wizards.com stats to OGL stats, for linking to pages that use the Open Gaming License.  These are legal for linking to, and most monsters can be found at http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAtoZ.html. - Peregrine Fisher 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and Stats, Oh My! 

message: The suffix (Dungeons & Dragons) has been added to I don't know how many of our page names.  They really shouldn't have this unless there are multiple pages with the same name. - Peregrine Fisher 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. I will post a a request at Bot requests for a bot to move everything of the form Foo (Dungeons & Dragons) to Foo if Foo doesn't exist or is a redirect to the D&D article unless there is disagreement here. Cheers --Pak21 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested. Cheers --Pak21 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And no response received over there :-( I'll make a start of doing this manually. Cheers --Pak21 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I think that the real world information we have on the various subjects should be emphasized by being put towards the top of the articles.  I would also like to deemphasize some of the in-game info by combining its sections.  Basically I keep seeing Creative origins towards the bottom, and I would like to move it up towards the top.  I think publication history and then creative origins should be the first two sections.  For the monsters, I think the Ecology, Environment, Typical physical characteristics, alignment and Society sections should all be lumped into a Description section, unless they're actually long enough to support their own sections.  The sections about campaign settings and other media seem to be working alright.  What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sections should be in this order (after the intro sentence/paragraph): Creative Origins, Publication History, Description/Ecology/Environment all rolled into one honkin' paragraph, Alignment left to the infobox (where applicable), and lastly, Society(/Alignment where necessary) in a paragraph (if applicable, not all monsters have societies).  Comments? -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Creative origins, publication history, description is the right order, now that I think about it. - Peregrine Fisher 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to change our format instructions a bit 

message: The main article on Dungeons & Dragons has come a long way since this basic list was done. I now suggest we have a good core of a feature article and have suggested on it's talk page that it is now time to make a concerted and detailed effort to get it fully to Featured Article standard before it is nominated for a third attempt at featured article. While I have not been very active in this project as a whole, I have done a lot of work on this particular article, and I think this is a key one for members of this project to focus on. - Waza 11:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Article - plan to get to Featured Article Status

message: I've got a copy of the Dragon Magazine Archive CDs sitting around.  It includes in searchable PDF form the full text of The Strategic Review and The Dragon/Dragon Magazine/Dragon though issue 250. I've found it useful for pulling citations from (See example).  If it's useful, I'm happy to dig out specific quotes, confirm citations, and the like, just let me know.  I only have crude search capabilities, so I'd rather not go on general fishing expeditions.  It will be easiest if you know roughly what issue you're interested in, or if you can suggest a set of reasonably unique words likely to appear in the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, our D&D pages need all the refs they can get.  A good way to find Dragon articles is to use the index at http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/articles-subject.html .  Then go to the PDF. - Peregrine Fisher 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer: citations from Strategic Review (all) and Dragon 1-250 

message: For some reason, the chart showing how many articles are assessed at each level (stub, start, etc.) doesn't seem to be working. I left a note here, but wanted to let y'all know about the problem too, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment chart wackiness 

message: Can someone tell me what http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/ is about, and what the copyright status is on the monsters their?  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  enworld.org 

message: ===Please help another D&D article get to Good Article standard===
There is currently to my knowledge only one D&D related articles classified as Wikipedia:Good Articles and none at Featured Article level. I would like to see the main Dungeons & Dragons article to featured article status, but getting there is not an easy task. To help build my skills and work on something more achievable in the short term I decided to try and take a D&D related article to Good article status. Over the past 2 weeks or so I have put a lot of work into Ravenloft (D&D module) and plan to nominate it soon. I am hoping to get some feedback first.
I believe this article has now reached the standard to be considered a good article and am planning to soon nominate it for Good article status.
The first criteria it is  (1) It is well written. is my biggest concern as I have been so close to this article is hard to see its flaw, any feedback is very much appreciated.
Of secondary concern is (6) contains images, to illustrate the topic. There is one image in this article and that should be sufficient, but more would be good. If you have any of the latter reprints of the module please scan them to add to the article.
I do believe firmly it meet all the other criteria as it is (2) factually accurate and verifiable, (3) broad in its coverage, (4) follows the neutral point of view policy, and (5) stable. - Waza 11:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination for [[Ravenloft (D&D module)]]

message: There is currently to my knowledge only one D&D related articles classified as Wikipedia:Good Articles and none at Featured Article level. I would like to see the main Dungeons & Dragons article to featured article status, but getting there is not an easy task. To help build my skills and work on something more achievable in the short term I decided to try and take a D&D related article to Good article status. Over the past 2 weeks or so I have put a lot of work into Ravenloft (D&D module) and plan to nominate it soon. I am hoping to get some feedback first.
I believe this article has now reached the standard to be considered a good article and am planning to soon nominate it for Good article status.
The first criteria it is  (1) It is well written. is my biggest concern as I have been so close to this article is hard to see its flaw, any feedback is very much appreciated.
Of secondary concern is (6) contains images, to illustrate the topic. There is one image in this article and that should be sufficient, but more would be good. If you have any of the latter reprints of the module please scan them to add to the article.
I do believe firmly it meet all the other criteria as it is (2) factually accurate and verifiable, (3) broad in its coverage, (4) follows the neutral point of view policy, and (5) stable. - Waza 11:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help another D&D article get to Good Article standard

message: * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Ice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Faith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Light, Dragons of Ice, Dragons of Light, Dragons of Light - Some dragonlance modules are up for AfD. - Peregrine Fisher 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Dragonlance modules (as I've tagged the misspelling for speedy deletion) Cheers --Pak21 09:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Proposal for Dragonlance Modules 

message: We've got a little discussion about how to name module series going on at Talk:List of Dragonlance modules, please drop by and give your opinion. - Peregrine Fisher 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Module series names 

message: I noticed a new article called List of monsters in monster manual (Dungeons & Dragons).  The article appears at the moment to be a template added and currently only houses one monster.  It lists the name of the monster and a descriptive paragraph.  However, I do have a couple of questions.
First, assuming such a list were completed, would it be a copyright violation as an unapproved copy of large portions of the Monster Manual?  If so the article would have to be deleted.  
On the other hand, if it isn't a copyright violation, then this list might a preferable method to list D&D monsters than using seperate articles for every single monster.  Major monsters, like major characters in fiction, could still have their own articles.  But minor monsters which have little to no references outside of the monster manual itself could simply be included in the overall list.
So since this project is the one most heavily involved in these articles, what are your thoughts?  Should the list be nominated for deletion at afd as a likely copyright violation, or should it be worked on more thoroughly and used as a "list of minor characters" type article for D&D?  Or should something else be done? Dugwiki 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's any more of a copy vio on that page than on seperate pages.  I think a lot of the individual pages are virging on copy vios, though.  We do need to merge our monsters somewhere.  How should be break these pages down?  All the creatures from the MM won't fit on one page. - Peregrine Fisher 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the name and described scope of this article is too narrow. If you are making a summary of the v.3.5 monster manual what is the point? you should go buy the book. However if someone wants to do something like this I would suggest something more generic like List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters then you could include things like first appearance, and what main monster books the monster is described in for each edition, including if on SRD. It would then be not just useful info about the monster but a useful reference on somene looking to research the "evolution" of the monster through different versions of the game. If would also be then more than a simple copyright vio out of the v.3.5 MM. - Waza 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of monsters in monster manual (Dungeons & Dragons)]] questions 

message: Please see my comments at Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons deities for discussion of my propose overhaul to the various pantheons and cosmologies of D&D on Wikipedia. -Harmil 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this.--Robbstrd 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deity overhaul 

message: Any ideas for what should be in a Plane infobox?  I was thinking the following:
*Type (inner, outer, demi, elemental, etc)
*Layers (#)
*Alignment (if applicable)
*Chief Inhabitants (devils, demons, modrons, slaadi, eladrin, etc)
*Major Powers (pantheons, demon lords, deities, archdevils, etc)
Thoughts?--Robbstrd 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plane infobox

message: The reference’s on most of the game modules is just redundant and useless information. The info is often listed some where more appropriately in the article. The References just reference’s itself.
How about we fix this or just droop it if there is nothing useful.Dm2ortiz 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference section has become pretty standard for all D&D articles. When writing papers, it is standard practice to include all works in the bibliography, even if you're writing about a book. This is because when writing about something, one will refer to it--in this case, the number of characters the module is intended for, level of said characters, credits, etc. In fact, if you check around Wikipedia, you'll find several examples, such as Siddhartha & Ulysses.--Robbstrd 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are missing the point. The reference section, at least how Wikipedia considers it is for citing your references. It's generally not used for anything other than a list of notes for verifying your facts. When you are writing about a book information about the author, year published and illustrator is put in the info box section. If you include information about the author's personal life (i.e. something not actually covered in the book itself) or other writings about this book (such as reviews and the like) then you would cite it in the reference section. If nothing is referenced in the Wikipedia article then the reference section should be empty we should not be putting stuff in there just for the sake of putting something in there 
Wikipedia:Citation templates
Dm2ortiz 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted, when you put information from the module in the article, then you are referencing the module.--Robbstrd 03:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References (template)

message: A call to all members of the D&D wiki project.
We are currently having a major dispute that needs to be settled by all members of the D&D wiki project.
The dispute is as follows.
1. Should we put disambiguation tags on D&D articles preemptively or should we wait until there is an article conflict with some other Wikipedia article.
Vote on preemptive or wait.
2. What should we label these tags? Example "child's play (module)", or "child's play (adventure)" and at this point we are taking all suggestions.
email me at Dm2ortiz@aol.com or post on the D&D wiki project talk page
member          	pre      	suggestions
Aetheilas       	         	
Bmader          	         	
BreathingMeat   	strong no	D&D
Dm2ortiz        	yes      	adventure
Dragonmaster    	         	
Efgardiner      	         	
Everchanging02  	wait     	D&D
Frrostie        	         	
GnomeNinja5     	         	
Gsalt           	         	
Ifrit           	Wait     	D&D
J Milburn       	no       	[No comment]
Jeske Couriano  	no       	adventure
Lord Balin      	         	
MJ the Prophet  	         	
mordicai        	         	
Peregrinefisher 	         	
Piuro           	         	
Robbstrd        	no       	(D&D adventure)
Serpent's Choice	         	
shadzar         	         	
St.daniel       	No       	Adventure
Turlo Lomon     	No       	(D&D module)
member       	pre	suggestions
AgentLewis   	   	
Aikisenshi   	   	
AKParker     	   	
Big Mac      	   	
BOZ          	   	
CaptainQuery 	   	
GJD          	no 	D&D module (see Ravenloft (D&D module)
Gothenem     	   	
Interested2  	   	
Kesh         	   	
lifebaka     	   	
Torquebomb   	   	
TrickyYoda   	   	
Trixt        	   	
Waza         	   	
Bondgirl 2170	   	
JPWoodman636 	   	
===Polling is evil===
Polling is a horrible way to determine consensus, and the results of this poll should just be used to give a basic idea of what the consensus is, NOT determine it. Our consensus should be based on discussion and on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. J Milburn 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, well, I'm sorry to break it to you- a poll will not put it to rest. We never determine consensus via polls. Currently, you believe that we should pre-emptively disambiguate, despite the fact you are basing this on no guidelines or policy, and your only logic appears to be that it provides context. Context should be provided by the opening paragraph, not the title. In fact, you are going against our guidelines. We are told to use common names, and these are known as [module title], not [module title] (book). The guidelines, as well as common sense, tell us to only call the article anything other than the common name (except in some extreme cases) when other things are known as the name as well. Using this logic, pre-emptively disambiguating is unneeded, and will continue to be no matter how many people you get to tick a box. Provide reasons, not hordes of people who mindlessly agree with you. J Milburn 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ther is no pre-emptively disambiguating guidelines or policy. pre-emptively disambiguating is common on Wikipedia. my only logic is; as Wikipedia grows we will need to do it soon or later. I have stated 35+ pages so far and the "poll" as you call it will tell me how i sould wright them. I'm not looking for any one to agree with me; I just need to know what everyone wants. Dm2ortiz 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre-emptively disambiguating creates article titles which do not reflect what the title of the article would be in a perfect world, and so should be avoided. Not every title needs to have brackets after it. It's Gravitation, not Gravitation (scientific theory), it is Wikipedia, not Wikipedia (website) and it is Adolph Hitler, not Adolph Hitler (dictator). What do you actually hope to get out of this poll? J Milburn 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J Milburn has this right on both accounts.  All that polling does is shuffle people into competing camps rather than engendering discussion.  Wikipedia does not make decisions via voting.  Also, discussion about pre-emptive disambiguation is largely settled territory.  From the naming conventions, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (emphasis mine).  The closest analogue to modules would be the standards set for books at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books).  And indeed, that convention prefers no disambiguation except when necessary.  See especially #Precision.  I understand the desire to have articles on related topics named in similar formats, but (also from WP:NAME), "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors..." (emphasis in original).  Serpent's Choice 17:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It certainly is 'settled before everyone has a say'. I'm sorry, but we don't have every editor have their say on every XfD debate, every RfA, RfC, RfB... Debates are not settled by everyone having their say, they are settled by discussions coming to a natural conclusion, and this one certainly has. Guidelines, common sense, consensus and the current norm all say that we do not pre-emptively disambiguate, so we shouldn't. As for what to disambiguate the pages with- that is something we can continue to discuss, but not something we should vote on, or list our opinions on. J Milburn 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it is settled. Policies have been clearly shown that this action is not necessary, and those interested enough to discuss the matter have shown consensus: do not disambiguate unless there is a conflict between two article names. If you want to give it a week, fine. But first, strike that poll out. Consensus is settled by discussion, not votes or polls. This isn't a tally, it's a conversation. -- Kesh 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you actually want a week for? What do you hope to get from this poll? J Milburn 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ortiz, you're clearly in deep left here.  Nobody here seems to think we should preemptively disambig the articles, and the poll is not going to help matters.  Leave the nightmare's corpse alone. -Jeske (v^_^v) 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, there is a distinct difference between 'module' and 'adventure'.  A 'module' traditionally takes a single 'session' to complete (like Living Greyhawk modules, which usually take 4 hours).  An 'adventure' can take several sessions to complete.  These definitions should not be confused with a 'campaign', which is a series of 'adventures' strung together to detail a greater story.  - Everchanging02 05:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure that's true: to quote from the start of The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, which is "Dungeon Module S4" (just as I happen to have that one next to my PC at the moment): "Preparing for Play: To properly referee the adventure—an undertaking likely to last several game sessions—". --Pak21 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's too much confusion. Why not just disambig everything to do with D&D with (D&D) where necessary? BreathingMeat 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that. It makes it clear what context we're talking about. However, as this is going to be used on only a very few articles, I really don't think it's important what we choose. --Pak21 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  just (D&D) works for me. It's straightforward and simple. It's great when someone comes up with an idea rather than an argument.BreathingMeat you are a genius but you knew that already. ha ha Dm2ortiz 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  "(D&D)" would be simpler for such distinguation.  - Everchanging02 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "(Dungeons & Dragons)" - D&D is also the colloquial name for a radio station, if'n I'm not mistaken? -Jeske (v^_^v) 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- it appears to have a few meanings. In any case, as I say, monsters are already labelled in this way. J Milburn 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I ran into a problem yesterday when it comes to forgotten realms. We have the shining South place versus shining South the accessory book. Should these be disambiguated or should they be combined? I'm leaning towards combined myself. What you think? Dm2ortiz 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: D&D wiki project consensus

message: Polling is a horrible way to determine consensus, and the results of this poll should just be used to give a basic idea of what the consensus is, NOT determine it. Our consensus should be based on discussion and on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. J Milburn 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, well, I'm sorry to break it to you- a poll will not put it to rest. We never determine consensus via polls. Currently, you believe that we should pre-emptively disambiguate, despite the fact you are basing this on no guidelines or policy, and your only logic appears to be that it provides context. Context should be provided by the opening paragraph, not the title. In fact, you are going against our guidelines. We are told to use common names, and these are known as [module title], not [module title] (book). The guidelines, as well as common sense, tell us to only call the article anything other than the common name (except in some extreme cases) when other things are known as the name as well. Using this logic, pre-emptively disambiguating is unneeded, and will continue to be no matter how many people you get to tick a box. Provide reasons, not hordes of people who mindlessly agree with you. J Milburn 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ther is no pre-emptively disambiguating guidelines or policy. pre-emptively disambiguating is common on Wikipedia. my only logic is; as Wikipedia grows we will need to do it soon or later. I have stated 35+ pages so far and the "poll" as you call it will tell me how i sould wright them. I'm not looking for any one to agree with me; I just need to know what everyone wants. Dm2ortiz 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre-emptively disambiguating creates article titles which do not reflect what the title of the article would be in a perfect world, and so should be avoided. Not every title needs to have brackets after it. It's Gravitation, not Gravitation (scientific theory), it is Wikipedia, not Wikipedia (website) and it is Adolph Hitler, not Adolph Hitler (dictator). What do you actually hope to get out of this poll? J Milburn 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J Milburn has this right on both accounts.  All that polling does is shuffle people into competing camps rather than engendering discussion.  Wikipedia does not make decisions via voting.  Also, discussion about pre-emptive disambiguation is largely settled territory.  From the naming conventions, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (emphasis mine).  The closest analogue to modules would be the standards set for books at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books).  And indeed, that convention prefers no disambiguation except when necessary.  See especially #Precision.  I understand the desire to have articles on related topics named in similar formats, but (also from WP:NAME), "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors..." (emphasis in original).  Serpent's Choice 17:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It certainly is 'settled before everyone has a say'. I'm sorry, but we don't have every editor have their say on every XfD debate, every RfA, RfC, RfB... Debates are not settled by everyone having their say, they are settled by discussions coming to a natural conclusion, and this one certainly has. Guidelines, common sense, consensus and the current norm all say that we do not pre-emptively disambiguate, so we shouldn't. As for what to disambiguate the pages with- that is something we can continue to discuss, but not something we should vote on, or list our opinions on. J Milburn 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it is settled. Policies have been clearly shown that this action is not necessary, and those interested enough to discuss the matter have shown consensus: do not disambiguate unless there is a conflict between two article names. If you want to give it a week, fine. But first, strike that poll out. Consensus is settled by discussion, not votes or polls. This isn't a tally, it's a conversation. -- Kesh 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you actually want a week for? What do you hope to get from this poll? J Milburn 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ortiz, you're clearly in deep left here.  Nobody here seems to think we should preemptively disambig the articles, and the poll is not going to help matters.  Leave the nightmare's corpse alone. -Jeske (v^_^v) 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, there is a distinct difference between 'module' and 'adventure'.  A 'module' traditionally takes a single 'session' to complete (like Living Greyhawk modules, which usually take 4 hours).  An 'adventure' can take several sessions to complete.  These definitions should not be confused with a 'campaign', which is a series of 'adventures' strung together to detail a greater story.  - Everchanging02 05:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure that's true: to quote from the start of The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, which is "Dungeon Module S4" (just as I happen to have that one next to my PC at the moment): "Preparing for Play: To properly referee the adventure—an undertaking likely to last several game sessions—". --Pak21 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's too much confusion. Why not just disambig everything to do with D&D with (D&D) where necessary? BreathingMeat 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that. It makes it clear what context we're talking about. However, as this is going to be used on only a very few articles, I really don't think it's important what we choose. --Pak21 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  just (D&D) works for me. It's straightforward and simple. It's great when someone comes up with an idea rather than an argument.BreathingMeat you are a genius but you knew that already. ha ha Dm2ortiz 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  "(D&D)" would be simpler for such distinguation.  - Everchanging02 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "(Dungeons & Dragons)" - D&D is also the colloquial name for a radio station, if'n I'm not mistaken? -Jeske (v^_^v) 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- it appears to have a few meanings. In any case, as I say, monsters are already labelled in this way. J Milburn 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I ran into a problem yesterday when it comes to forgotten realms. We have the shining South place versus shining South the accessory book. Should these be disambiguated or should they be combined? I'm leaning towards combined myself. What you think? Dm2ortiz 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polling is evil

message: As a minor note, Dm2ortiz has been blocked for making legal threats. I'd say this discussion is over, considering he was the only real proponent of the renaming. We should probably move the other discussion (what to use when we do need to disambiguate) into it's own discussion section. -- Kesh 03:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: i noticed redlinks for Assassin Vine and Chaos Beast and such, because their articles are Assassin vine and Chaos beast, but i think to remember manuals naming 'monsters' with all words having a capital. doesnt this mean the articles should too?
if not, some redlinks need fixing, or wikipedia should automise redirecting redlinks to articles with more or with less capitals, as it does when you do a "search"· Lygophile has spoken 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The manuals actually decapitalize the monsters' names when mentioning them in their writeups. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. They're not proper names, so they should follow normal naming conventions for articles. -- Kesh 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so that means other mentions of them should also be decapitalised right?· Lygophile has spoken 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes – as Jeske says, they're not proper names, so they don't get capitals. Cheers --Pak21 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalisation 

message: yesterday I was updating all the information on D&D module book covers. Not only was I doing the 40 or so I have uploaded but everyone else's. So much easier to fix the problem then point out what someone's missing. Anyway as I was going through all images I was moving everything to a standard template for summary and fair use the looks of little neater and cleaner perhaps we can all use it from this point forward. The fair use template is directly from Wikipedia's fair use page for the summary template I'm not sure who came up with it but I copied it off of one of the modules pages. I am also planning to row place many of the existing photos with larger ones as her wizards of the Coast's legal requirement of registered trademarks and copyrights which need to be visible on all works. (I'm up to Q will continue working on this)
does anyone else have any input? Dm2ortiz 13:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement for larger versions. Fair use allows us to use them without any licence or permission from WotC, which allow us only non-commercial use and is therefore not relevant for Wikipedia. Please stop these actions. --Pak21 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you're missing the point packs and I don't quite understand what your point is? could you clarify? It seems to me you're just being a jerk? How many times do I have to tell you not to talk to me but to use a mediator? How about instead of babysitting me you actually get some work done? I have had disagreements with many other wiki users but were easily resolved with simple communication. You are the other hand don't communicate you troll. (Trolling: attempting to solicit a negative response) I have gotten very little work done on this site thanks to your constant harassment. If you don't leave me alone I may have to seek legal resort. But back to the point no one here has any problem with clear and crisp images. Everyone seems to like the large pitchers. Why are you targeting my pitchers are not everyone else's? These are rhetorical questions as I do not want a response from you. do not speak to me begin. You are not even a member of the dungeon and dragons wiki project Dm2ortiz 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  book covers 

message: Right, well, last time I attempted this, the images were deleted, and I was wondering what the opinion of using images from galleries such as this. I have drawn up a boiler-plate fair use rationale for use of the images in articles on their respective monsters, when a description of the monster's appearance is given, here. I am looking for the opinions of others on the subject. J Milburn 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I want any more to do with fair use rationales at the moment :-) But that looks fine to me, so long as its used for in articles describing only the D&D monster (otherwise we fail the "non-replacability" test). However, my larger worry on this front is about the notability of the articles themselves; I don't honestly see any way in which (picking one at vaguely random) shocker lizards have had any influence on the non-D&D world at all, so I can see a situation in the future when many of these articles are merged/deleted, and wouldn't want to see too much work go to waste at that stage. Cheers --Pak21 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This came up before. The answer is here, and it's no.BreathingMeat 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fair use law allows us to bypass such restrictions, that's the point of it. J Milburn 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with fair use regarding D&D monster illustrations is that WotC publishes books that describe and illustrate monsters (Monster Manual et al.)  By having our own articles about monsters, complete with illustrations, we are duplicating a considerable portion of a for-profit work.  That doesn't necessarily mean that we can't assert fair use properly, but it does mean that we shouldn't just stick images in articles with a boilerplate rationale and expect it to stand up upon review.  Serpent's Choice 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster images 

message: Could someone take a look at Expedition to the Demonweb Pits? The plot summary section doesn't sound like a normal plot summary. Should it be there? It doesn't comply with WP:IINFO #2, either. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expedition to the Demonweb Pits