Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dungeons & Dragons: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:57, 21 December 2007 editLollipop-3 (talk | contribs)337 edits I have an idea...: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 08:17, 21 December 2007 edit undoJéské Couriano (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,147 edits rv - there already is, and this is not a forumNext edit →
Line 103: Line 103:
==Board game discussion history== ==Board game discussion history==
For the ]-archived discussion about whether D&D is a board game, see . Proper guidelines for editing comments on an article talk page are listed at ].— ] (]) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC) For the ]-archived discussion about whether D&D is a board game, see . Proper guidelines for editing comments on an article talk page are listed at ].— ] (]) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

== I have an idea... ==

I have never played the game, but I think it would be very popular if there was an online MMORPG made out of the game.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:17, 21 December 2007

Featured articleDungeons & Dragons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 19, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 24, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDungeons & Dragons Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
D&D to-do:

view


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Archiving icon
Archives
  1. Jan 2005 - Jul 2005
  2. Nov 2005 - Mar 2006
  3. Oct 2006 - Nov 2006
  4. Nov 2006 - Mar 2007
  5. Sep 2007 -
  6. Sep 2007 - Oct 2007

External Links

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)

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)
I think that any WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided can be purged. — RJH (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both. Anyone considering readding them, be sure to specify exactly what information is on those sites that can't be included in articles here but is reference material. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
Unfortunately Misplaced Pages 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)
Jep, those seem to be the things to do. Daranios 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

I would note here point 4 of the "Links to be considered" section of the External Links guideline: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that is (should be?) on a D&D wiki, and is also the stuff which is (reasonably in many cases) being removed from Misplaced Pages. --Pak21 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

DND (redirects)

Board game discussion history

For the User:TheJudge310-archived discussion about whether D&D is a board game, see here. Proper guidelines for editing comments on an article talk page are listed at Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments.— RJH (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: