Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 6

message: Just wanted to make a few comments on the principles I have been using to create notes and references in this article as this topic has not really been discussed recently and was raised in peer review feedback.
The sources both in the references and footnotes use Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. As these templates are based on the Harvard Referencing style, extrapolations of unusual cases have been based on trying to follow the style of these.  General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes.  The footnotes are all one of three types:
# A reference by author and data to one of the general sources in the References section, with page number and section heading or quote where relevant.
# A full citaion in the same format as those in the references section.
# An explanatory note of the text footnoted or a quotation, followed by the Source as per (1) or (2).
Some of the more unusual types of sources to be dealt with include:
# Books without page numbers, particularly Jonhson et al. (2004). This book has several authors listed inside the back cover, who have all been listed as authors of the book as a whole in the references section. For particular citations I have referenced author and section name and the chapter it occured in as there is no page numbers to reference by.
# Boxed sets have been listed as a set, particularly as in these cases, unlike some other games such as Warhammer, the box has an overall ISBN and author but the individual books do not. When refering to a particular item in the box have referenced the name of the book/handout/etc in the reference.
# Dragon/The Dragon/Dragon Magazine title given as of time of article but each linked to Dragon (magazine) to show they are the same journal. This title is unusual in that it has over all issue numbers (as per magazines) as well as Vol. and No. (as per journals). For earlier issue all three numbers are on the cover, latter issues show the latter two on the contents page only. All three are included by adding the issue number as it appeared on the cover to the title but unlinked. In the template   | volume = Vol. Number  | issue = No. Number (including descriptive text of these numbers)
The notes currently mostly conform to these standards described above, and I am currently working through changing those that don't. Please help in article and/or agree/disagree/discus with above below. - Waza 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just found the page numbers in Jonhson et al. (2004). They are hidden in d% in the middle right of each right hand side page only. I will now add then into the citations. - Waza 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and References 

message: I have been hunting high and low for references to support the information from the article as follows:
Dungeons & Dragons and the games it influenced also fed back into the genre's origin—miniatures wargames—with combat strategy games like Battletech, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000. Collectible card games, like Magic: The Gathering, were also heavily influenced by Dungeons & Dragons and its legacy.
I have been unable to find anything. the closest is this web page http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm which says that the creators of Magic were fantasy role-playing enthusiasts. Lacking any sources I can see the only way forward is to delete these scentences. However as they seem to be statements that may be true I thought I would ask here first if anyone else can point to any references. Of the four pages linked only MtG wikipedia article even mentions D&D and that is a single unsourced statement:
Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, Magic bears little resemblance to pencil-and-paper adventure games.
Any objections to deleting please note here, or any sources to allow keeping of this pleas add in article. - Waza 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search the text for the word influenced warhammer, warhammer.  As you say, I can't find that Magic:TG was influenced by D&D, but there's lots of articles that say the creator was a D&D player, like this.  Not alot there, you make the call. - Peregrine Fisher 04:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences - unreferencable statements 

message: This article is currently nominated as a Featured Article. Please come and support the nomination. Check this article is up to scratch against the FAC criteria (listed above), look at the other critism, and either help address the concerns of those that oppose it and/or support the article if you believe those concerns are not legitimate.
To help I have summaries concerns raised at the nomination, at the moment there are two oppose, no support and several comments. Please note this is a summary of concerns raised on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Dungeons & Dragons and not my views (In fact while I see the merit in the first major and first minor critism, I have argued strongly against the others)
Summaries of concerns/opposition to Featured Article status. Minor concerns have been raised by one person, Major ones have been supported by others. - Waza 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no reply. As best I can tell it meets the above criteria, so I think another FAC is appropriate. — RJH (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Nomination - Please help. 

message: One of the oppositions for the current FAC nomination is needs more non primary, preferably printed not online sources. I have started going through anything I can to find this information, particularly magazines that may have reviews of core games and key supplements or discuss D&D as a "Business comodity". I am finding little so far, but am starting this section to note what I have found. The first ones I am adding do not appear to be too useful, but if nothing better is found it is best to have a note of them as they may be better than nothing. Please add here anything that may be useful if you don't have time or ability to integrate it into the article. - Waza 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additional sources 

message: I picked up a few old issues of White Dwarf that may be useful for additional citations.  On the down side, the publisher, Games Workshop, was TSR's distributor at the time, so there is a conflict of interest.  (I enjoy the irony that Games Workshop was once proud to be party of the greater gaming industry.)  It's still a third party and may be useful.  — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980-81 ''White Dwarf'' citations 

message: There is no mention of the different gods/goddesses worshipped within the D&D framework. A small note on the different deities would improve the article, I think. --WoodElf 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's setting info, which varies with each setting. Or do you mean the Greyhawk deities used in the PHB? 85.227.226.168 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides, some DMs use different deities, and the Deities and Demigods book contains real-world gods.  Specify the campaign setting, please - as 85. noted, we have no way of determing if you're meaning the Greek parthenon (Deities and Demigods 3E), the Faerun parthenon (Forgotten Realms) or the "standard" parthenon (Greyhawk). -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Across the various setting there are literally hundreds of deities.  Even a small blurb on each of them would take a massive chunk of space.  DoomsDay349 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  It would also be mildly off-topic (the individual settings articles would be more appropriate).  However, the PHB does include a set of dieties (extracted from the Greyhawk setting), which implies a certain "officialness" which might warrent at least a brief mention. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall add it right now.  I must find it on the website though.  Neopetslovette 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I would expect Wikipedia at least to have the official information on this.
As far as I am aware that would amount to "Nothing is known about a 4th edition as of yet".
85.227.226.168 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Besides, you just missed a dispute over Pokemon names that turned out to be official, so just because we don't know about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th edition 

message: :I just deleted that, as I am 100% sure that shouldnt be in the article.  Neopetslovette 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely not.  Typical vandalism given the topic.  Good job taking care of that.  DoomsDay349 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny; there was a thread here asserting the exact opposite (i.e. that jocks were playing D&D; it's been archived since). -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh.  I like the 'famous people' section, "Many players, miffed with this stereotype,[138] embrace the fact that comedian Stephen Colbert, musician Moby, and actors Vin Diesel, Matthew Lillard, Mike Myers, Patton Oswalt, Wil Wheaton and Robin Williams have made their D&D hobbies public."  Uh...  If you're trying to REVERSE the stereotype, noting Patton Oswalt and Wil Wheaton aren't exactly the best examples.  (And Matthew Lillard, Mike Myers, and Robin Williams are questionable.)  I also think it's funny, I recently had the pleasure of witnessing something that I was certain was a sign of the impending apocalypse: a D&D playing group composed of greater than 50% women, none of them that could be described as conventional "geeks". 71.193.207.217 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm certain George W. Bush pulling out of Iraq would be the sign you're referring to, and he hasn't done so yet.  He's only going in deeper. D&D, on the other hand, isn't, even though I see more male than female players. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Geeks play DnD

message: There are several occurances of the word 'dominate' throughout the article that seem to be a phrasing more appropriate to a WotC marketing blurb than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.231.113 (talk • contribs).
:Atually, since D&D has outsold all its competitors by decent amounts, "dominate" can be called the correct word. -Jeske (v^_^v)
:I'm with Jeske.  D&D is the 700-pound gorilla in the market.  No other game comes close in sales.  As to dominating the style of play with things like character sheets, GM-centric play, dice, and numeric attributes, I don't think that's debatable either.  Any other accurate term ("overwhelming" leaps to mind) would suffer from the same marketing-speak sound.  But such words are accurate. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'dominate' 

message: Should the game mechanics section cover saving throws? — RJH (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, yes. -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I stuffed something in there. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Now you just need to Reference your statements. BreathingMeat 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Alan De Smet for taking care of that. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saving throws? 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
*4a.The section Controversies is of higher priority than Related Products. and needs a higher place.
*7a.Some Image Captions contains fancruft.
-Flubeca (t) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why has the article been rated as A-class by the Dungeons and Dragons WikiProject when it has failed a number of good article criteria? --tgheretford (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, "Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class." (Emphasis in the original).  Maybe it doesn't deserve the A rating, but failure to be a Good Article isn't evidence against it being A rating. — Alan De Smet | Talk 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As GA reviews go, that's pretty close to success. (The reviewer is a little new at this process, which is why it failed instead of being put on hold.) I made a few changes to the article to address the above objections, then re-submitted it for another try at GA status. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: This search contains numerous magazine articles about D&D. I hope the authors of this article can make use of them. Particularly, I think there may be good information here about the sales and business side of the game. — Amcaja (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass.
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Article is factually accurate with many sources to back up the information.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Article covers all aspects of the game throughly and adequately.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Controversies section is good enogh and the article is written in a NPOV.
:5. Article stability? Yes. Article is not subject to edit wars.
:6. Images?: Yes. Images are properly tagged.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. 
— --Hdt83  Chat 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Hdt83. — RJH (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I was wondering if this citation is correct?
:From the Sorcer's Scroll: D&D®, AD&D® and Gaming...
Should it say "Sorcerer's Scroll"? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct citation 

message: Some concern has been expressed during the FAC concerning the use of a pair of images on this page under the Fair Use criteria. For the moment I replaced the PHB image with a Commons image of a game session in progress and commented out the module image. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This was just added, but lacks a reference:
:Although a small adventure entitled "Temple of the Frog" was included in the Blackmoor rules supplement in 1975, the first stand-alone D&D module published by TSR was 1978's Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, written by Gygax.
I temporarily removed it from the body as the page is in the middle of an FAC. It probably is correct, but fails to meet 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. (I looked but I could not find a sufficiently solid source.) — RJH (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced addition 

message: :Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition (also called 4e) has been announced by WoTC and is slated for release in 2009. It is believed that this is so in order to keep a fresh new torrent of new players. Many 'veterans' of DnD believe that this is merely a cash grab.
Normally I'd hit this with  but seeing as we're trying to get to FA status I shifted it to here. BreathingMeat 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly not true.  If WoTC had "announced" anything, it'd be on their press release page.  It's not.  Powers T 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At GenCon it was just announced 4E would see release in May 2008. --Thomas B 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another unsourced 

message: Over at the featured article candidate discussion, Axl suggested including some references to early reviews as details of critical response.  That sounds like a really good idea to me.  Unfortunately the easiest magazine to get archives from (Dragon) isn't appropriate, as TSR published it, making it a huge conflict on interest.  So, if anyone has old gaming magazines from the 70s or early 80s, relevant snippits and citations would be helpful.  I'm thinking something like "Example Games described the first edition of AD&D as 'complex and rewarding'."  Possible sources that leap to mind are Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer and White Dwarf.  We can probably benefit from details from reviews from all editions, but the early ones seem most important. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as i am but a few months older than D&D i have never heard of those magazines, but will check with relatives that played to see if anyting of that nature has survived attics or garages for the past 33 years. White Dwarf also might be a CoI as they were the competition to D&D. how many "gaming" magazine did exist back in 1974? shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got old gaming magazines? Old reviews would be helpful 

message: The article failed to be promoted. Here's a synopsis of the objections that were not addressed:
# Citations — More academic studies need to be cited. For example, Gary Alan Fine's Shared Fantasy.
#*Note: there's a partial list of studies at: http://www.rpgstudies.net/, some of which can be "read online".
# Editing — Some short paragraphs could be merged. Several paragraphs go uncited. Some adjectives could be removed.
Of these, the citation issue seemed to be the most
serious objection. The remainder are, to me, minor editing issues. There was also a comment about needing more critical acclaim and wanting to see more quotes from gaming magazines from White Dwarf and Roleplayer (magazine). There was also an objection raised about some of the images, but I think
that has been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like these have been addressed, with exception of the gaming magazine quotes and critical acclaim. (But I don't think those two can be remedied.) — RJH (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis of FAC 

message: I'm not clear why the following is notable:
*OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) is an attempt to re-issue the rules for First Edition AD&D while complying with the OGL.
The only publication associated with OSRIC is a free set of rules. The only indication is a "coming soon" announcement. Yet it is listed as a "key example" in this article. It should probably be removed unless the notability can be established. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's not a "key example."  However, it's apparently notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article (or at least hasn't been noticed by more deletion oriented editors yet).  So I moved it into "See also", which seems appropriate to me.  If the OSRIC article gets killed for notability, then I'd delete it from See also. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've addressed this. — RJH (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I've been searching around, trying to find some positive, notable acclaim for the game (that also has solid, independent references), but I couldn't seem to find much:
:Dr. Joyce Brothers said Dungeons & Dragons:
:The game has also been endorsed for its educational content by the National Association of Gifted-Creative Children.
It seems like there should be a lot more. Does anybody have some suggestions or useful links? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like that is a "no". :-) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acclaim? 

message: In this edit RJHall pulled some details from this Slashdot article because "rm slashdot entry; the author is anonymous and evidence is anecdotal. Unsuitable for FA material."  I'm not so sure about this.  The author is not anonymous. Quoth Next Generation: "Michael "Zonk" Zenke/Editor, Slashdot Games/Michael Zenke is the editor of Slashdot Games. Under the pseudonym 'Zonk'...".  Zenke has credentials beyond Slashdot, including at The Escapist ( (you'll need to click "Advanced Search" then select his name from the Author list; it's not linkable.) and "Massive Update" for 1up.  I believe a post by Zonk on Slashdot qualifies as a reliable source.  As for it being anecdotal, I believe it's reasonable for Wikipedia to report that a reliable source reports on anecdotal evidence.  Ultimately much of journalism is simply anecdotes of things observed by the journalist.  That there is at least some initial hostility to 4e is noteworthy.  I'm not deeply attached to the sentence in question, but I think it did add something to the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot anecdote valid addition? 

message: The following addition:
: Outside of its original pen-and-paper incarnation, Dungeons & Dragons is perhaps best known for its associated TSR novels, the acclaimed Baldur's Gate computer games, and the critically-panned Dungeons & Dragons film.
is unsourced and (to me) presents a particular point-of-view. I moved it here pending references to corroborate the opinions presented. It also presents more detail than is provided by the "Related products" section, so it is not a summary (and hence belongs in the body). No offense was intended toward the editor by this act; it just needs to be done in order to maintain the page's FA status. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok no worries. Whether or not it's true, it is unsourced, so I understood it might be quickly removed when I added it. I took a chance that the perhaps would mitigate the need for references, but I suppose not.Vranak 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sorry. However the Dungeons & Dragons related products article could do with a more detailed lead. Perhaps I could suggest starting there, as it is a forked article from this page? — RJH (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's got links to the D&D movie and a nice cover picture of Baldur's Gate near the top of the page, that's good enough for me. Vranak 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It probably would be good to get those forked articles up to GA status at some point. That'll make the D&D article tree more solid. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which forked articles? Vranak 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the five "main article" links listed under the various summary sections. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced PoV addition 

message: This is a great article (obviously, or it wouldn't be featured), but I was surprised there was no mention of the game as a social activity -- something friends get together to do on a weeknight or weekend, ordering or cooking food (especially pizza and soda pop) -- along with how groups often rotate the DM either within a campaign or among several different campaigns or even other RPGs.  I realize a lot of this is not unique to D&D but D&D remains the reference point for gaming culture.  Powers T 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information? 

message: My understanding was that the whole reason that AD&D was called that was because of some contractual agreement between Gygax and Arneson, where TSR could avoid paying Arneson some royalty if the game wasn't literally called D&D.  AD&D wasn't literally named D&D, so Arneson got no royalties from it.  Then Arneson and Gygax didn't speak for 20 years, or something.  If someone could verify this, or the grain of truth from whence this story came, it ought to be present in the History section.  Tempshill 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carlos is incorrect in this case. He is referring to the "Expert Set" which was for basic D&D. AD&D was a different game as people have noted below. It's a common mistake though. Ethan a dawe 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a popular misconception that AD&D was a set of rules to further D&D. it was in fact a new game system. not very different than what 4th edition will be. "Advanced" was used to try to seperate it to NOT confuse people about it. new name = new game kind of thing. but obviously that didnt work too well. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far I know, D&D and AD&D co-existed, the former being directed more to the experienced players, and the latter was a simpler ruleset for beginners. The Merciful 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Even if you are not familior with fantasy role playing games in general, and DUNGEONS& DRAGONS in particular, you will find this work (with its companion volumes, MONSTER MANUAL and DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE) is a complete game system in itself. It will stand alone, and it has been written and edited in order to moke the whole as easily understood as possible without taking anything away from its complexity and completeness. If, on the other hand, you are a veteran adventurer of many swords & sorcery campaign games, ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS will prove to be superior to any past offerings in the fantasy role playing game field.' — AD&D 1st edition players handbook p.7 it says to me that it is seperate from D&D and a 'complete game system in itself'. also somewhere Gayg Gygax mentioned that AD&D was NOT an update to D&D but a new game, but i cant find that Dragon Magazine article currently to provide that information. it had to be around the 1978 time frame as my PHB because i dont think the question would be unanswered for long period of time after the game came out. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for "Advanced" 

message: I read this article over a year ago, and it was... ahem... not ready for prime time.  You have really done a spectacular job.  -- Ssilvers 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations, editors!

message: Someone needs to lock this article for today since it seems to be undergoing persistent vandalism.Dp76764 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As today's featured article, protection should be avoided if possible. The vandalism is actually quite a bit lower than I had expected it to be. --Onorem♠Dil 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, we *can't* protect articles on the front page barring severe, unrelenting vandalism and extenuating circumstances (see WP:NOPRO). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked today and only a handful of fixes/reverts seemed to be needed. Most of the edits appeared beneficial or neutral. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I deleted the recently added "Online communities" section. Here is what it looked like at the time of deletion.  It didn't really say anything interesting.  That a hobby community would form online communities isn't noteworthy.  The link to dndonlinegames failed to cite anything at all.  The link to Gleemax failed to support the idea that WotC was attempting to capitalize (indeed, D&D Insider is the attempt to capitalize).  Perhaps we should include a brief note about online gaming, but I'm not sure it needs a full section, and we'll need some better citations.  Given that the article recently received Featured Article status, and my desire to enjoy the FA glow for at least a few weeks, I'm erring on the side of caution and deleting it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online communities 

message: Part of the discussion during the FAC process resulted in the addition of the word "tabletop" to the first sentence in the article. I've been trying to maintain good faith by restoring the word whenever it is deleted, but at least one editor finds it objectionable. So, I'd like to ask the article audience which is better:
# Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D or DnD) is a fantasy role-playing game (RPG) originally designed by...
# Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D or DnD) is a tabletop fantasy role-playing game (RPG) originally designed by...
I understand that the later is not literally true, but the word "tabletop" was added to indicate that is by far the most common mode by which this game is played. Comments appreciated, thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda agree with the latter because "role-playing game" can also be taken to mean a video game such as Final Fantasy or Breath of Fire - nowadays there's no real distiction between D&D and its ilk (i.e. P&P RPGs) and Final Fantasy and its ilk (i.e. video game RPGs). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead needs a qualifier such as "tabletop" or "pen and paper" to distinguish it from electronic RPGs, even if those descriptors are less than perfect. android79 21:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As role-playing game notes, RPG has been partially co-opted by the video gaming industry, so "tabletop" alerts readers more familiar with CRPGs that this is something different.  Furthermore, "tabletop" distinguishes it from the other major type of RPGs, LARPs.  I'm not real fond of "tabletop", nor "pen  and paper," because, as the RPG article notes, "neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary," but I'm not aware of a better term and there is significant benefit to readers. I do counter propose a slight tweak: "fantasy tabletop role-playing game."  This emphasizes that "tabletop" is a specific kind of RPG.  If you click that link, the page does mention the significance of "tabletop" for readers who are interested. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm so used to seeing "fantasy role-playing game" that inserting 'tabletop' after 'fantasy' seems a little odd. But no matter. — RJH (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: tabletop is a type of roleplaying game as mentioned to distinguish between live action, or computer. pencil and paper would work also, becuase they are need via the 'rules' of D&D. it also signifies that like board games D&D is meant to be played with a group of people together. the move of people to create what is know as virtual tabletops in order to play many games also emphasizes this classification. when looking at Micro Machine video games they could be consider miniature games, but they are not tabletop miniature games. i think it better NOT to confuse people and a single word doesnt deter from the entire article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the consensus is to include "tabletop" in the lead. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tabletop" fantasy role-playing game 

message: I would like upload :Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg on Commons (it has a free license), but I think that it will be deleted there, because it needs fair use, it's a derivative work from copyrighted works (see this section of Commons:Derivative works). I think that the shoot it's too much close to the miniatures.--Trixt 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe that photo can go on Commons. Indeed, I would argue it needs a fair-use rationale here as well, as copyright for the miniatures themselves is not the uploader's to give away. --Agamemnon2 05:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, a photograph of a copyrighted work (the miniatures) involves two copyrights: the copyright on the miniature, and the copyright of the photograph as a whole.  (This assumes that the photo isn't a trivial reproduction.  In this case, I believe a carefully posed, lit, and framed scene of miniatures is just as creative and thus copyrightable as a posed, lit, and framed scene of people.)   The photographer (me, in this case), can license his rights however he likes.  However, that license may not be enough.  At the time I uploaded it, I didn't see (and still don't see) any plausible copyright claim on the part of Wizards of the Coast, but since it was so easy to add a fair use claim, I just added one just in case.  I've since reorganized the claim to make it slightly more specific and overt.  — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that for clearness it's also necessary including on image description page this template, .--Trixt 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg 

message: In the "Edition History" section, there's a bit of confusion about the Basic Sets.  The first one was by Holmes, as mentioned, and the second was by Moldvay.  However, the "Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals" progression didn't exist until the third revision of the Basic Set, by Frank Mentzer.  The Moldvay version consisted only of the Basic and Expert sets.  (Thus, Moldvay-era D&D is referred to as "B/X", while Mentzer-era is "BECMI".)  The different versions are distinct enough that they (all three) have their proponents and regular players, even now, with "Rules Cyclopedia D&D ("RC") being still a fourth permutation.  (In addition, the "Immortals Set" wasn't so much reprinted in '91, as it was revamped into "Wrath of the Immortals", a supplement for the Rules Cyclopedia.)  The text only needs a few small changes, but this is an important distinction to make.  (For confirmation of this, check www.acaeum.com.)  --DestroyYouAlot 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The acaeum site is anonymous, so I personally don't consider it authoritative. This article is also written summary style, so it needs to be brief. Perhaps you could add the fine details to the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article? — RJH (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous sites and sites that do not reveal their sources are not usable as sources themselves unless it's their own article.  I've been through this with Serebii and the 4th-gens, and (to a lesser extent) SIHULM. -Jéské(v^_^v) 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If we remove the "1991" from "Immortals (1986, 1991)", and then added  "The Immortals set was revamped as Wrath of the Immortals (1991)" to the end of the same paragraph, would that address your concern? Add we need then is a solid ref. for the latter. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if anybody here owns a copy of the original 'Wrath of the Immortals' (1991) boxed set? Could you tell me if it be used as a reference for this page to show that it superseded 'Immortals'? If so, do you have a page number? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you mean the one from 1992 form the bottom of the page? 'Allston, Aaron (1992). Wrath of the Immortals. TSR. .'  either way i think all this belongs on the editions article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way. I was just trying to reach an accomodation without adding significant bloat. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i still don't think it is necessary for the main article since each seperate edition isnt discussed there, but all part of the Editions of article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic D&D Confusion 

message: The header section now includes three different redirects when only one is actually needed. (The other two should be covered adequately by the second.) I'd like to propose replacing the three redirects with this one:
Are there any objections? — RJH (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems confusing that someone looking for the video game "dnd," unaware of its origins in D&D would need to follow a link titled "Dungeons & Dragons (disambiguation)" to get more details.  The same goes for someone looking for information a citation of "Drunk & Disorderly" or "Drag & Drop." I agree, the current version is a bit of a mess, but redirecting everyone to Dungeons & Dragons (disambiguation) seems worse.  I'm not fond of custom article hats, but perhaps this is the place for one?  Maybe a special "D&D, dnd, Dungeons & Dragons" disambiguation page we can link to? Unfortunately I'm not coming up with a better way to phrase this.  Perhaps "This article is about the role-playing game. For other uses, see Dungeons & Dragons (disambiguation). "D&D" and "dnd" redirect here. For other uses, see "D&D (disambiguation)".  This would necessitate putting a link to dnd in the D&D disambiguation page. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can just have D&D and dnd redirect to D&D (disambiguation) and get rid of those headers from this article. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was "bold" and did this. =) The computer game was added to the D&D disambiguation page. — RJH (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects in the lead 

message: I don't understand why the external link for the Wikia Wiki is so high up at the top when it is a horrible wiki.  The D&D Wiki is totally active... recent changes was all filled up, but Wikia's had only 2 edits.  It seem like it is very biased to me.  TheFlow 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a matter of bias, but I'm not terribly sold on either wiki providing much of particular value above and beyond what we can provide in the article proper. Any reason we shouldn't pull both? — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided can be purged. — RJH (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm late to state my opinon: I can understand the deletion because both wikis do not as yet provide much information beyond wikipedia. On the other hand a number of D&D articles have been given a box that questions their notability. I think the notability guidelines are quite harsh, but a great many subjects from D&D detailed in wikipedia do not satisfy the it. E.g. any number of monsters, NPC, etc. have never been covered by secondary sources. The official guideline from wikipedia says, that if this is not the case, the article should be moved to an appropriate wiki - if available. There is a wiki for Dungeons and Dragons, even if not yet a good one, and I fear a great many articles would have to be move there from wikipedia, if wikipedia guidelines were strictly applied. That's why I included the link and why I'm for reintroducing it. Ideally the Dungeons and Dragons wiki should become better first and the link should be introduced then, but I don't know if this works, because the wiki is not known to most authors working on D&D at wikipedia. Daranios 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't really the right place to advertise any web site, including a wiki of topics that might be considered non-notable here. You could mention the site on the WikiProject pages, however, as a place to put material that might be deleted from here. Also, you're always free to mirror existing material there under the GNU Free Document License. — RJH (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jep, those seem to be the things to do. Daranios 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although we removed the link from here, personally I would like to see a successful D&D wiki. So I hope it works out. In fact we could almost use an entertainment wiki (to include all of gaming and media), since those are the types of topics that most often seem to irk the WP deletionist mob. No offense intended to individual mob-ettes, of course. ;-) — RJH (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What are the knowledgeable sources? Anonymous editors? Bullet 13 of "Links normally to be avoided" explicitly excludes "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." — RJH (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links