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 editContent 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 Latest revision as of 01:19, 4 November 2024 edit undoDchmelik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,355 edits proper encyclopaedic styleTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
(741 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Talk header}}
|action1=FAC
{{Article history
|action1date=January 30 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 1 |action1=FAC |action1date=January 30 2005 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 1 |action1result=failed |action1oldid=9780736
|action2=PR |action2date=October 19 2005 |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1 |action2oldid=25905689
|action1result=failed
|action3=FAC |action3date=November 15 2005 |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1 |action3result=failed |action3oldid=28304972
|action1oldid=9780736
|action4=PR |action4date=April 03 2007 |action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive2 |action4oldid=119906097

|action5=FAC |action5date=04:22, 5 May 2007 |action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive2 |action5result=not promoted |action5oldid=128270461
|action2=PR
|action6=GAN |action6date=2007-06-24 |action6result=not listed
|action2date=October 19 2005
|action7=GAN |action7date=2007-06-29 |action7result=listed |action7oldid=141331395
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/Archive1
|action8=FAC |action8date=16:08, 30 July 2007 |action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive3 |action8result=not promoted |action8oldid=147572144
|action2oldid=25905689
|action9=FAC |action9date=21:28, 30 August 2007 |action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons |action9result=promoted |action9oldid=154492829

|action10=PR |action10date=01:47, 3 May 2023 |action10link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive3 |action10oldid=1151724882
|action3=FAC
|action3date=November 15 2005
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=28304972

|action4=PR
|action4date=April 03 2007
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons
|action4oldid=119906097

|action5=FAC
|action5date=04:22, 5 May 2007
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive2
|action5result=not promoted
|action5oldid=128270461

|action6=GAN
|action6date=2007-06-24
|action6result=not listed

|action7=GAN
|action7date=2007-06-29
|action7result=listed
|action7oldid=141331395

|action8=FAC
|action8date=16:08, 30 July 2007
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive3
|action8result=not promoted
|action8oldid=147572144

|action9=FAC
|action9date=21:28, 30 August 2007
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons
|action9result=promoted
|action9oldid=154492829

|topic=Everydaylife
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=FA
|maindate=September 14, 2007 |maindate=September 14, 2007
|topic=everydaylife
}} }}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
|1={{D&D
{{WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons|importance=top}}
|class=FA
|importance= Top {{WikiProject Role-playing games|importance=top}}
|attention=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
|past-collaboration=
|start=
|end=
|article=
|hide-auto-cats=
|small=
|needs infobox=
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|2={{RPGproject}}
| age=2160
|3={{BTGProject}}
| archiveprefix=Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive
| numberstart=9
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=3
| minarchthreads=1
| format= %%i
}} }}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{afd-merged-from|Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons|Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons|6 July 2022}}
{{Copied
|from=Netflix and LGBT representation in animation
|from_oldid=1021636791
|to=Dungeons & Dragons
|to_diff=1021642495
|to_oldid=1021387885
|date=May 5, 2021
}}
{{Annual readership |scale=log}}
}}
{{Refideas
|'']''<ref>https://archive.org/details/playboywinnersgu00free/page/264/mode/2up</ref>
|'']''<ref>https://archive.org/details/games-13-1979-september/page/10/mode/2up</ref>
|'']'' (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons)<ref>https://archive.org/details/completeguidetor0000swan/page/24/mode/2up</ref>
|'']'' (Dungeons and Dragons)<ref>https://archive.org/details/completeguidetor0000swan/page/72/mode/2up</ref>
{{reflist-talk}}
}}

== Popular culture ==

Why is this section "reemergence in pop culture—on the Netflix series '']'', whose main characters play D&D in a basement; on the sitcom '']''; or via the host of celebrities who display their love for the game online". Under Development history and not In poplar culture. ] (]) 07:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:In Popular Culture sections with lists of pop culture mentions are generally discouraged on Misplaced Pages. Instead, reliably-sourced "trivia" should be incorporated into the rest of the article when relevant. Of course, you'll still find these sections in some articles, but moving trivia has become a growing trend over the past decade or more. You can read more about it at ] and ]. ] (]) 12:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::Ok that makes sense thanks ] (]) 16:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Additionally, that quote from the ''Los Angeles Times'' is focused on the contributing factors to the "game's resurgent popularity" so even if this article had an "in popular culture" section, the focus of the quote isn't really on what media the game has appeared in. The focus is on why are more people playing this edition of D&D which fits best as part of the development history. 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

== planes (creating/restoring infobox) ==
Years ago Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) planes were in ] infobox but I didn't think fiction should mix with philosophy/metaphysics/spirituality/religion, so removed D&D section (50% regret).&nbsp; Is it Misplaced Pages guideline/rule don't mix fiction with other subjects?&nbsp; If not, I'd like to restore, but best to create all-editions D&D planes infobox.&nbsp; They can combine, such as when Advanced D&D (AD&D) second edition (2nd ed, 2e) merely renamed AD&D 1e planes, list together, with newer planes' editions in parentheses, and maybe cosmology sections (earlier standard D&D simpler than AD&D, and though I only asked ChatGPT, it said D&D 4e (2008 not original 1983) added 'world axis' and 5e (2014 not original 1991) used 'great wheel' (see Editions of Dungeons & Dragons about early lack of edition naming resulting in duplicates) but I don't have later/duplicate D&D 3e (2000), 4e (2008), 5e (2014) (just original 3e (1981), 4e (1983), 5e (1991))--I only know earlier standard D&D planes (from 1970s to Wrath of The Immortals) and AD&D 1e, somewhat AD&D 2e/]<nowiki>).--~~~~</nowiki> ]☀️🦉🐝🐍(]&#124;]) 07:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


== proper encyclopaedic style ==
<!-- {{todo|1}} -->
] says don't use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) through nine, rather than writing out their complete words, which I don't see done right in D&D articles. I know many gamers prefer ordinal or even new abbreviations like 1e, 2e, etc., but it's not proper encyclopaedic style, and neither is capitalizing 'edition' (which I've just had to correct once). I'm not going to go through and change all these, but apparently it should be done. One exception might be if you abbreviate a full name of the game where ordinal is official (e.g. 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd ed.') but presumably not when you talk about an edition without referring to name of a game--]☀️🦉🐝🐍(]&#124;]) 09:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
{{archive box|
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{-}}
== External Links ==


:{{ping|Dchmelik}} Please don't go on a campaign to remove all uses of "2nd", "3rd", etc. First of all it's just not true that such forms are not used in formal writing - this is trivial to show. Second of all, that style guide is talking about the ''normal'' use of "second", "third" - e.g. "he went back to the cafeteria for a third helping of food", not "he went back to the cafeteria for a 3rd helping of food." The D&D case is closer to a title or a common name. In fact, there's a clear example right there - using "&" rather than "and" is discouraged, but if it's part of a title, it's fine, we don't "fix" it to "Dungeons and Dragons". Maybe one form should be used or maybe the other, but the argument should be on common usage in high-quality sources, not on a MOS guideline intended for normal text rather than titles. Checking say Shannon Appelcline's "Designers & Dragons", I see lots of forms - "third edition", "3E", "2nd Edition" / "3rd Edition" (when quoting a WotC Press Release!), etc. It's not clear published writing agrees with a more absolutist stance here, although I only checked one source. ] (]) 15:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
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. ] 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*I'd support its removal. Not a very useful external link at all. ]] 21:41, 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? — ] | ] 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::I think that any ] can be purged. &mdash; ] (]) 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. — ] | ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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.<br> 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. ] 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. &mdash; ] (]) 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Jep, those seem to be the things to do. ] 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. ;-) &mdash; ] (]) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


::I disagree, but won't oppose abbreviation. Formal writing doesn't use ordinals, or only for 10th and above (depending on style). The only case 'edition' was capitalized is in ''Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition'', despite usage is ungrammatical, it's part of the name... but isn't part of any other official rulebook names. I don't care what press writers say (my ninth year/class/grade English teacher said media is typically on sixth year/class/grade writing level at best) rather than what University of Oxford's style guide, says, etc. (Cambridge would be fine if has one, and possibly a few other UK university style guides, such as in Edinburgh, though Oxford is definitive, and doesn't seem to give the 'above 10th' exception of American technical writing)--]☀️🦉🐝🐍(]&#124;]) 11:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I would note here point 4 of the ] section of the External Links guideline: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for ] 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. --] 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." &mdash; ] (]) 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


:::The brand uses Edition capitalized; lower case would be grammatically correct for multiple editions of the same book rather than different versions of the game. ] (]) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
==DND (redirects)==
* Can someone with sufficient knowledge perhaps add a link to a disambiguation page for DND? When typed all caps, I believe it should redirect directly to the ] article, seeing as this is a very common abbreviation in the media and amongst the Canadian Public. At the very least, there should be a direct link at the top of the page. ] (]) 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
** The ] already redirects to ], and has dones so since March. It looks like an editor added a "Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces" link to the target of the ] redirect on the 21st. So I'm unclear what the concern is. &mdash; ] (]) 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


::::If that's the case, it'd have to be shown as part of a name, as in my example (possibly sole such example) and used fully as such. When talking about editions of anything, if 'edition' isn't actually written as part of a name, it's incorrect to capitalize... there would have to usage as a name such as ''Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition'' (form of proper noun), not just non-name referencing such as '5th edition' (not proper noun), but even in such case, I don't think they've actually done that since AD&D 2e (nevertheless even '2nd edition' when not in the name isn't a proper noun either)--] (]&#124;]) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
==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 ].&mdash; ] (]) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


:::::It really doesn't matter what some outside style guides say, because we have our own Manual of Style. ] says the term should be capitalized (and possibly even italicized, depending on whether it's part of the title or simply a related term). In addition, at ], it says that ] are typically capitalized. That links to ''proper names'' (actually the article ]) which has a section on brand names (]): {{tq|brand names and other commercial terms that are nouns or noun phrases are capitalized whether or not they count as proper names}}.
== I have an idea... ==
:::::I'll also note that the ] article has more than a thousand page watchers, and it's a Featured Article (since 2007), which included a compliance check with our MoS. That "Edition" hasn't been de-capitalized in the past 17 years strongly suggests the status quo version is favored by the community.
:::::dchmelik, as an aside: something in your signature is breaking the normal Reply functions on Talk pages. You'll definitely want to look at that. ] (]) 01:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::dchmelik, looking closer, it's because your signature doesn't include a time/date-stamp, ]. So not only is it breaking the Reply function, but probably also archiving of Talk pages. ] (]) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)


::::::'Sign your contributions to a Talk page by using four tildes (\~\~\~\~), which produces your username and a time/date stamp'--http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Editing#Talk_pages (I 'escaped' tildes in the quotation to prevent them being converted there). I've always done that, which you can see above unless your web browser isn't working (odd, now I see in most previous case it wasn't produced right)--] (]&#124;]) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

Latest revision as of 01:19, 4 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dungeons & Dragons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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
May 3, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Featured article
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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:
WikiProject iconRole-playing games Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 July 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Dungeons & Dragons. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Netflix and LGBT representation in animation was copied or moved into Dungeons & Dragons with this edit on May 5, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

References

  1. https://archive.org/details/playboywinnersgu00free/page/264/mode/2up
  2. https://archive.org/details/games-13-1979-september/page/10/mode/2up
  3. https://archive.org/details/completeguidetor0000swan/page/24/mode/2up
  4. https://archive.org/details/completeguidetor0000swan/page/72/mode/2up

Popular culture

Why is this section "reemergence in pop culture—on the Netflix series Stranger Things, whose main characters play D&D in a basement; on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory; or via the host of celebrities who display their love for the game online". Under Development history and not In poplar culture. Aojrocks (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In Popular Culture sections with lists of pop culture mentions are generally discouraged on Misplaced Pages. Instead, reliably-sourced "trivia" should be incorporated into the rest of the article when relevant. Of course, you'll still find these sections in some articles, but moving trivia has become a growing trend over the past decade or more. You can read more about it at MOS:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. Woodroar (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense thanks Aojrocks (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, that quote from the Los Angeles Times is focused on the contributing factors to the "game's resurgent popularity" so even if this article had an "in popular culture" section, the focus of the quote isn't really on what media the game has appeared in. The focus is on why are more people playing this edition of D&D which fits best as part of the development history. 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

planes (creating/restoring infobox)

Years ago Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) planes were in plane (esoterism) infobox but I didn't think fiction should mix with philosophy/metaphysics/spirituality/religion, so removed D&D section (50% regret).  Is it Misplaced Pages guideline/rule don't mix fiction with other subjects?  If not, I'd like to restore, but best to create all-editions D&D planes infobox.  They can combine, such as when Advanced D&D (AD&D) second edition (2nd ed, 2e) merely renamed AD&D 1e planes, list together, with newer planes' editions in parentheses, and maybe cosmology sections (earlier standard D&D simpler than AD&D, and though I only asked ChatGPT, it said D&D 4e (2008 not original 1983) added 'world axis' and 5e (2014 not original 1991) used 'great wheel' (see Editions of Dungeons & Dragons about early lack of edition naming resulting in duplicates) but I don't have later/duplicate D&D 3e (2000), 4e (2008), 5e (2014) (just original 3e (1981), 4e (1983), 5e (1991))--I only know earlier standard D&D planes (from 1970s to Wrath of The Immortals) and AD&D 1e, somewhat AD&D 2e/Planescape).--~~~~ dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

proper encyclopaedic style

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ordinals says don't use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) through nine, rather than writing out their complete words, which I don't see done right in D&D articles. I know many gamers prefer ordinal or even new abbreviations like 1e, 2e, etc., but it's not proper encyclopaedic style, and neither is capitalizing 'edition' (which I've just had to correct once). I'm not going to go through and change all these, but apparently it should be done. One exception might be if you abbreviate a full name of the game where ordinal is official (e.g. 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd ed.') but presumably not when you talk about an edition without referring to name of a game--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 09:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dchmelik: Please don't go on a campaign to remove all uses of "2nd", "3rd", etc. First of all it's just not true that such forms are not used in formal writing - this is trivial to show. Second of all, that style guide is talking about the normal use of "second", "third" - e.g. "he went back to the cafeteria for a third helping of food", not "he went back to the cafeteria for a 3rd helping of food." The D&D case is closer to a title or a common name. In fact, there's a clear example right there - using "&" rather than "and" is discouraged, but if it's part of a title, it's fine, we don't "fix" it to "Dungeons and Dragons". Maybe one form should be used or maybe the other, but the argument should be on common usage in high-quality sources, not on a MOS guideline intended for normal text rather than titles. Checking say Shannon Appelcline's "Designers & Dragons", I see lots of forms - "third edition", "3E", "2nd Edition" / "3rd Edition" (when quoting a WotC Press Release!), etc. It's not clear published writing agrees with a more absolutist stance here, although I only checked one source. SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, but won't oppose abbreviation. Formal writing doesn't use ordinals, or only for 10th and above (depending on style). The only case 'edition' was capitalized is in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, despite usage is ungrammatical, it's part of the name... but isn't part of any other official rulebook names. I don't care what press writers say (my ninth year/class/grade English teacher said media is typically on sixth year/class/grade writing level at best) rather than what University of Oxford's style guide, says, etc. (Cambridge would be fine if has one, and possibly a few other UK university style guides, such as in Edinburgh, though Oxford is definitive, and doesn't seem to give the 'above 10th' exception of American technical writing)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 11:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The brand uses Edition capitalized; lower case would be grammatically correct for multiple editions of the same book rather than different versions of the game. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case, it'd have to be shown as part of a name, as in my example (possibly sole such example) and used fully as such. When talking about editions of anything, if 'edition' isn't actually written as part of a name, it's incorrect to capitalize... there would have to usage as a name such as Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (form of proper noun), not just non-name referencing such as '5th edition' (not proper noun), but even in such case, I don't think they've actually done that since AD&D 2e (nevertheless even '2nd edition' when not in the name isn't a proper noun either)--dchmelik (talk|contrib) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what some outside style guides say, because we have our own Manual of Style. MOS:GAMECAPS says the term should be capitalized (and possibly even italicized, depending on whether it's part of the title or simply a related term). In addition, at MOS:PROPER, it says that proper names are typically capitalized. That links to proper names (actually the article proper noun) which has a section on brand names (Proper noun#Brand names): brand names and other commercial terms that are nouns or noun phrases are capitalized whether or not they count as proper names.
I'll also note that the Dungeons & Dragons article has more than a thousand page watchers, and it's a Featured Article (since 2007), which included a compliance check with our MoS. That "Edition" hasn't been de-capitalized in the past 17 years strongly suggests the status quo version is favored by the community.
dchmelik, as an aside: something in your signature is breaking the normal Reply functions on Talk pages. You'll definitely want to look at that. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
dchmelik, looking closer, it's because your signature doesn't include a time/date-stamp, which is required. So not only is it breaking the Reply function, but probably also archiving of Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
'Sign your contributions to a Talk page by using four tildes (\~\~\~\~), which produces your username and a time/date stamp'--http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Editing#Talk_pages (I 'escaped' tildes in the quotation to prevent them being converted there). I've always done that, which you can see above unless your web browser isn't working (odd, now I see in most previous case it wasn't produced right)--dchmelik (talk|contrib) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: