Talk:DL series

message: As DoomsDay349 seems to have been bold in turning into List of Dragonlance modules into something others did not want, and his article better seemed to fit the name of that article, I have recreated the article here at one of the suggested names before we reached total concensus for a name. He also added Template:Dragonlance-stub when the article I believe is far beyond a stub now as moved across here. Atleast some of the participants of Project Dragonlance seem to want to downplay the gaming aspect of the Dragonlance series against the novels, which is fine if that is how they want to run their project, however I believe the people who worked ion this material are interested in D&D modules, including the dragonlance ones, as gaming accesories. Possibly we should create our own D&D module project? - Waza 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be interested to know I've removed information from this article that is already presented in the main article.  DoomsDay349 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for this pages creation

message: Waza, you seem to know more about this "Project Overlord" stuff than me, so I'm thinking you may want to integrate what I found here.  It has some stuff we could summarize, mostly "Dragonlance was invented by Hickman, based illegally off the Dungeons and Dragons game. Instead of suing him for copyright infringement, TSR hired him and started producing the Dragonlance module series, which quickly became nationally popular."  I'm not sure if this is the "three modules featuring evil dragons," so if you know, that would help with integrating it. - Peregrine Fisher 05:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically know what I have just read today on page 4 of a copy of DL5 Dragons of Mystery. The link is very interesting but it sounds a bit of a corruption of what Hickman did with Ravenloft, something I do know about because I put a lot of work into getting that article to good article status. He sold this module that he had been working on previously to TSR just after the gave him a job, and then finished off while working for them. Hickmans official bio says he got the job at TSR after trying to sell them two modules, but there is no indication they were what became Dragonlance. I would guess they were probably I3 Pharaoh and B7 Rahasia, which hickman had already published independantly to a small print run. Maybe Dragonlance was already floating around at the time as an idea as well. I think the info from this link will need to be verified from another source, but very interesting. - Waza 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm too lazy to add the info now, but I think , , , , , , ,  and  may be useful. - Peregrine Fisher 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More refs 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see my comments at the main page.  Who should be disappointed in who?  Thanks for the respect.  DoomsDay349 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has been taken over, making a new sub article

message: I really hope this does not turn into an edit war but I am very tempted to revert DoomsDay349 last edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragonlance_modules_%28DL_series%29&oldid=117387023. He appears to be determined to hobble this article despite my responding to him on the main article talk page as requested above. That the information already exists in a topic on another page is no reason to delete it here considering
#This article is the specific article to contain the information (Discusses this series not all Dragonlance modules as it is placed to the intro on the other page)
#At very least reference are appropriate to be included redundantly (needed on each article that uses them)
#This article is clearly well beyond stab stage and well into a start class article
#This article is being actively developed (ie the sections on List of that have most edits are those that became this article)
I am walking away from my PC for a while now but I heope this can be resolved rather than by an edit war. - Waza 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, the edit is, I see now, quite wrong, quite wrong.  I do not recall actually stubbing the article with a tag...but that is beside the point.  I realize now what the point is and I agree that the info should be here and not at the master list.  I'll confess to you I was perhaps slightly angry over the situation, and I think the both of us may have had reason to be so.  So I say let bygones be bygones, and let's try to do something with this articles!  My only thing is, I don't want to see such a big and interesting project grow stagnant, that's exactly why I began all these changes.  So if we both agree to work hard on this I have no problems with the changes, so long as the both of us have a fair say.  DoomsDay349 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I do understand your concerns about some articles that seem to be created as stubs and stay there. I agree it is a good thing that people make a commitment to expand articles once they are created, though we may disagree on what should be done if someone doesn't. While I can assure you that while I have probably created articles in the past that I am sure have remained stubs to this day, I have just had a look at some of my earliest edits on wikipedia were new article creations that have been edited into sunstantial articles at the hands of other, including Peter Jensen, Tim Costello, Robot (Doctor Who), Kingmaker (board game) and Judges Guild. Also my current interest in bring D&D modules to significant articles is demonstrated by my recent work on two articles particularly. Dungeons & Dragons, which is we are still working on getting to featured article status, I have been pushing along adding substantial particularly in the area of references (more than tripled general references) and inline citations (from very few to over 90) over the last two months. Ravenloft (D&D module) which I took from a start class article early this month to good article status. Ravenloft particularly I wanted to develop as an example to what could be done for other D&D modules, as many articles on them are just stubs or maybe start class. While this article would not be finished overnight, there is substantially more information than on the single Ravenloft module, I believe this is an important series in the history of D&D modules and something I am committed to doing some work on over the next few months. - Waza 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Edit War

message: I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out who painted what.  This page says Larry Elmore did Deceit, Ice, Light, Mystery, and maybe Flame.  Another identifies Keith Parkinson for Desolation.  It would be nice to know for all of them.  I'd like to add cover and interior credits to each. - Peregrine Fisher 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't own them.  I want to so ridiculously badly but I don't have the money.  I'm still financing my novel collection.  I might be able to ask around on the forums (I spend a good deal of time there), but I'm unsure when I'd get an answer. DoomsDay349 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have access to all of these except the 1999 & 2000 reprints. I have DL11 in front of me at the moment - Cover Art: Jeff Easley - Interior Art: Jeff Butler & Diana Magnuson. Don't have time to go through them all now as about to go out, but I will get the info for you over the next few days. - Waza 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have it covered. - Peregrine Fisher 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance you're willing to sell those?  XD *sly grin*.  I have to ask :) DoomsDay349 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I downloaded them all using bittorrent.  If you happen do that sort of thing, it takes a couple of hours. - Peregrine Fisher 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you find a copy of the 15th anniversary version? From the review I read it was substantially different to the others. Also one off comment, you may want to check on the legality of these copies, I will leave that up to you and that is the last I will say on that. -Waza 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The versions I found are the originals.  It's illegal to download them, but as far as wikipedia is concerned, the information I add is unaffected by this.  The information is, and always was, owned by WotC, and we just have to be sure to not infringe on their copyright with the content we include in this article (and talk pages).  What would be a wikipedia no-no is if I were to include a link to the .torrent file, which I know not to do.  I've done a lot of work with fair use and copyright issues on WP, and while downloading it may or may not be moral, adding information from it has no legal effect on wikipedia.  Just thought I'd explain it because copyright law is pretty interesting, and comes up alot when editing fictional articles on wikipedia.  Basically, what shows up on wikipedia has to be legal; what editors do outside of it has no effect. - Peregrine Fisher 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do any of the editors working on this actually own the modules? 

message: There seems to be some confusion on the numbers. The original run of the Dragonlance storyline was 14 modules (12 adventures plus DL5 sourcebook and DL11 wargame/campaign accesory.) This was a complete series that was designed as the full story of the War of the Lance punblished from 1984 to 1986.
DL15 & DL16 were both published in 1988 and are anthologies with short adventures related to this storyline. After something of a gap. They were not originally planned as part of the series. Though at various times the series was planned to extend to 15 or 16 modules during it's publication, that was not these two modules but just a changed repackaging of the story told in DL1-14.
For this reason I will revert last changes to that state 16 modules between 1984 and 1986. I guess it could say 14 module story plus 2 extra's between 84 and 88, but that would be just as easy to change to from the reverted.
:Sounds good.  I became a little confused. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 14 or 16 in the Series?

message: No time to integrate this now, putting here for future reference:
*http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=964 - Shadow Sorcerer video game based on DL3 & DL4 - Waza 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - Waza 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :Image:World of Krynn module cover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (just that nobody updated the rationale when the content was moved from List of Dragonlance modules to here) --Pak21 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:World of Krynn module cover.jpg

message: :Image:DL12 Dragons of Faith.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) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DL12 Dragons of Faith.jpg

message: :Image:DL6 Dragons of Ice.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) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DL6 Dragons of Ice.jpg

message: :Image:DL7 Dragons of Light.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) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DL7 Dragons of Light.jpg

message: The image :Image:Dragons of Despair module cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Dragons of Despair module cover.jpg

message: Most of the Dragonlance modules are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles. As such, the following articles should be merged here: World of Krynn, Mists of Krynn, Dragons of Triumph, Dragons of Truth, Dragons of Faith, Dragons of Glory, Dragons of Dreams, Dragons of Deceit, Dragons of War (Dungeons & Dragons), Dragons of Light (Dungeons & Dragons), and Dragons of Ice. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you want to merge them into the "The DL Modules" section?  I found two independent sources for Dragons of Glory, so I believe that one should be removed from the merge suggestion. BOZ (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be the appropriate section. What sources for Dragons of Glory did you find? Would you mind adding them to the article? Neelix (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added them in 2010, with citations. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sources is not generally considered significant coverage; it's certainly not too much to be merged here. Do you know of any other reliable, secondary sources for Dragons of Glory? If not, I would recommend it be merged with the other articles. Neelix (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this is insufficient coverage for a standalone article, as this is a good start and it should be encouraged to grow from this point. I don't know of any other sources at this time. BOZ (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't encouraging the article to grow to include more reliable, secondary sources if we simply leave it alone; you are one of the most prolific editors of Dragonlance-related articles, so if you don't know of other sources to add, it's unlikely that other editors do. If we can't find more reliable, secondary sources, this article should be merged here along with the others. Neelix (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what other people can and can't find, so I will have to continue to disagree. Two reliable independent secondary sources should be sufficient for a standalone article, even if that is less than ideal. You can add a tag to Dragons of Glory asking for additional sources if that is the issue. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I think you're misunderstanding what significant coverage means.  Per WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Significant coverage is measured on a per source basis, not in terms of the total amount of coverage over all sources.  And the guideline simply states that multiple sources are required.  I think two sources is sufficient. <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 14:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying your understanding of "significant coverage," Torchiest. I think I had been misunderstanding the meaning of that phrase as it is used in the general notability guideline. I am content to remove Dragons of Glory from the merger suggestion. Am I clear to merge the other articles listed above? Neelix (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would be fine with merging any article that only has a single source, with the allowance that it could be brought back if additional sources were found.  But I'm hardly the end all be all expert on D&D article sourcing. I'm mostly like the mechanic around here. :) <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragons of Faith and Dragons of War apparently have reviews in independent gaming magazines, but I don't (yet) have access to those sources. As for the others, I have no idea. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with individual module articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on DL series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224091121/http://www.dragonlance.com:80/products/SVP-4002.aspx to http://www.dragonlance.com/products/SVP-4002.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://harpingmonkey.com/audio/roundtable-ep303.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DL series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035733/http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_kptribute to http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_kptribute
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dragonlance.com/products/SVP-4002.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224091121/http://www.dragonlance.com/products/SVP-4002.aspx to http://www.dragonlance.com/products/SVP-4002.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified