Talk:Dungeons & Dragons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ 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 about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Dungeons & Dragons has been listed as a Everyday life good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Dungeons & Dragons as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.


Archive 1, 2, 3, 4.

Contents

[edit] Featured Article Criteria Checklist & Comment Space

Based on my suggestion above, point (2), that the Featured article criteria should be carefully examined and discussed on this page, I have put together a structure based on the criteria. I have pulled these headings and comments direct from Featured Article Criteria, please add any comments about how they related to the article under each, signing them as normal. I envisage that this setion will act as a structured checklist to make sure all aspects of bringing this article to featured article standard are properly considered and addressed. - Waza 10:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be helpful for comparison to look at similar type articles that have achieved featured status. There are no RPG's with featured status, but there are a few board and card games we may look at to get ideas of what can be done to this article. Featured Articles about games are Monopoly (game), History of the board game Monopoly, Chess and Blackjack. Game articles that are former featured articles include games articles Go (board game) and Poker, while these are now below the standard for a featured article, the old featured version can be looked at. Of course it is useful to look at any featured articles for inspiration, not just games related ones. - Waza 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a text listing of the criteria to be crossed out as each is met as per the discussion below. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
    • (a) ????"Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.????
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
    • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
    • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
    • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
  3. It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
As I have done my best but fell I am unable to make a judgement on criteria 1(a) I have decided to nominate the article and let the community decide. Please go and support the article if you think it is ready, or fix it if it is not. - Waza 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

[edit] Well written

means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.

Is this article well written? I fell I have worked too much too closely on this article to even have an opinion. As all other criteria for featured articles I believe (As per this checklist) been met I am inclinded just to nominate this article and see what the featureed article reviewers have to say. Does anyone else have any opinions? - Waza 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive

means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.

  • Criteria Met This is one criteria I believe is clearly shown to be met. The basic sections of the article have not been added to for some time despite much work beinfg done by a number of editors. Length restraints must be balanced against this criteria and this balance is being held with other articles refered to to expand sections with more details. No recent suggestion have been made for new information that is agreed upon, most are refered to relevant detail article. - Waza 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factually accurate

means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

  • This is one area that may need some work. References and note citations are correctly formatted and the article is factual. However while the number of citations has greatly improved, there could be more still to show that the article is factual and not original research. While some suggest "One citation for each sentence!", this may be overkill, but then again it won't hurt. We need to identify everything that could be questioned and apply reference notes. If you see something in the article that could be questioned please add a note! If you see something that needs one but you can't find a relevant reference then please add a Template:Citation needed into the article at the appropriate point. Then when we see this[citation needed] others what we need to look for. - Waza 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been unable to find a reference to cite for:

    Outside of the gaming community, D&D has become a metonym used to refer to roleplaying games in general.

    I know it is true because I have seen and heard it so many times. From my mother who wold call it "playing D&D" no matter if we were playing Traveller, Gamma World, Car Wars or even other games as diverse as Kingmaker. To it's use in acronyms like BADD - Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons who was opposed to all RPG's. And even from gamers themselves who don't want to explain to non gamers that there are RPG's other than D&D. However original research does not count on Wikipedia, and I have not been able to find an actual reference for this statement. Unless someone else can find a suitable reference I think we need to remove this statement. - Waza 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have removed all the citations needed I marked several weeks ago as questionable material by either finding a citatin or deleting material in question where I could not find a reference to support it (please only read this material if you also add an appropriate citation) This may be enough to meet this criteria, I believe there is nothing that is questionable that is not covered by a citation or in the general references. It is probably still a good idea to add more citations, most of the remaining needs should be enough to be a footnote refering to appropriate page or section of an existing general reference. - Waza 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • More than doubled the amount of inline citations in the past week. Most additions refer to specific pages of items already listed in References section. But we still need more. Atleast one per paragraph, one per line is not too many. You may note my citations tend to go to a selection of the references that I have easy access to. PLease help by adding more citations, particularly to those I have not used much (Like very original brown/white box, Holmes' blue box, 2nd edition AD&D and D&D v3.0) - Waza 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While more citations cannot hurt there are now many times the number than when I started this section. Several unsourced statement have been modified or deleted. I feel this is now criteria met - Waza 06:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).

  • Criteria Met - again this is one that can be a bit subjective. It does appear to be neutral to me as I read it, but I am not sure what evidence I could give to support that. So in the lack of any evidence that it is not neutral, I will declare that it is is. IF you can see any evidence that article is not neutral then please correct or provide evidence/examples here - Waza 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stable

means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

  • Criteria Met No major recent changes at all. Even looking back over a longer period to previous featured article nominations show while there has been a great improvement and lots of info spun off into particular topic articles the basic structure of the information and content has changed little in over two years. - Waza 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects

The obvious relevant Wikiproject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. As this however is a unique article in the context of this project strong consideration should also be given to parent Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and the style guidelines for an article about a role-playing game. Should also look at other project mentioned at the top of this article, grandparent project Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. - Waza 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concise lead section

that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

  • Very, very good lead section but I can suggest some areas that may be able to be improved. It has a bold title, correct location to the table of contents, established context and appropriate length as per Wikipedia:Lead section. It does provide a good accessable overview of the whole article, with a possible concern in the last paragraph. While valuable introductory information establishing the popularity of the game,this is not really expanded in the main article. Possibly we need to consider where this material is included in the article? Should it be replaced in the leader with a summary of "Related Products", "References in Popular Culture" and "Controversy and notoriety"? As these are not really covered yet in the leader. - Waza 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My concerns above have been met, but there are two citations needed in the leader that require completion before the leader can be considered complete. - Waza 11:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Citations done (in one case, original research removed in the other). Leader complete. Criteria Met. - Waza 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper system of hierarchical headings

[edit] Substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

(see section help).

  • Criteria Met - this one seems a bit subjective, but I cannot see any reason why TOC is not "Substantial but not overwhelming". Anyone who disagrees please say why - Waza 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images appropriate to the subject

with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.

  • Images are appropriate with captions. However I believe there is still work to be done with fair use images. These images need a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page. That means something needs to be added to the page of every fair use image used in the Dungeons & Dragons article explaining why it is fair use in particular to use it on the Dungeons & Dragons page. - Waza 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Criteria Met - I have added fair use reasons specific to this article for all the remaining required images (about half were already done). Please remember to check these when checking through the article. - Waza 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Most images do not have the hidden text pointing to the fair use rationale as required. --Pak21 08:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by this? Can you please point to the requirement and provide an example of an image you think meets the requirement? Johntex\talk
Please read Help:Image page#Fair_use_rationale as referenced above. "This should be done in two places. Firstly, add the following hidden text in the article: <!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -->". This has not been done for most of the images in the article. Trivial, but necessary. --Pak21 09:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - Trivial but necessary, thanks for pointing it out. Will try to do when I get chance, but anyone else feel free to jump in first. - Waza 11:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added the relevant tag of this type to each picture that was missing it - Waza 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate length

staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


[edit] Notes and References

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:

  1. 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.
  2. A full citaion in the same format as those in the references section.
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

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)

[edit] Influences - unreferencable statements

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)

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)

All this has been removed except influence on Warhammer Fantasy Battle which is now references with http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html warhammer - Waza 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of actual D&D games

I have been thinking for a while that this article needs some images of some actual games in progress. The fair use images of the books are good for displaying them but they don't show anything about how the game actually works. I have added in an image I got permission to use from Phillip on the Dwarven Forge forums [1] but it would be good to show a variety of game styles. Here is how I see three "in game" pictures scattered through the article:

  1. This first one I put up, I was looking at this option for a picture showing one extreme of what can be done, with lots of optional accessories. I think this is good image for this but it may be possible to get better one.
  2. It would also be good to see the opposite extreme, perhaps and earlier edition AD&D/D&D with no minis/grid, players round a table (maybe coffe table?) with DM's screen, character sheets, references books and mapping on smaller scale grid paper.
  3. And then maybe something in the middle. For example using the grid from the back of 3.5 DM's guide with counters (not mini's). Or maybe the black box (1070) of mid 1990's, I have never played this version but from 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons it was a very popular introductory version of D&D which I believe came with a dungeon board and cardboard minis.

Any actual pictures or suggestions/comments please. - Waza 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone tried not three days before this comment, but they appeared to be harshly POV and the user was blocked for harassing User:FeralDruid. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Which was a silly reason, IMHO. The user in question was actually spamming numerous pages with images, including Gary Coleman and NASCAR, pictures of himself and friends in D&D costumes on Dungeons & Dragons and d20 System, and for some reason the image of a goat on Harley-Davidson. The harassment of me was little more than uploading an image of someone wearing a wizard's hat and a beard, under the filename Image:FeralDruid.jpg.
Anyway, the only picture I can really see being useful is of players around a battle mat with character sheets, dice and figures. Is this what you had in mind? Tuesday we're supposed to be helping save a town from marauding pirates; I can try and get a picture or two from that. -FeralDruid 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That would work. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Nomination - Please help.

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)

  • Major:
    • Featured Article Criteria 1a - Well Written - Article is not well written and still requires major edits for gammar etc.
    • Featured Article Criteria 1b - Comprehensive -
      • Article requires more information on "treatment of the subject as a business commodity"
      • Article requires critical reaction to the various editions
    • Featured Article Criteria 1c - Factually Accurate - Needs more printed (not web) non-primary sources. (i.e. reviews and articles about D&D from independant books and magazines)
  • Minor
    • criteria 1b - Related products section is too brief and needs to be expanded some (Does not need to contain all related product though)
    • criteria 1c - All footnotes must be at end of scentence (preferably) or after a , etc (Note: I strongly disagree that this is required)

I am wondering if the readers of this talk page think that these issues have been addressed? To me it appears that it has, but I'm not familiar with the state of the article prior to this FAC run. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Possible additional sources

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)

[edit] Religion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I shall add it right now. I must find it on the website though. Neopetslovette 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4th edition

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)

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)

[edit] Only Geeks play DnD

I just deleted that, as I am 100% sure that shouldnt be in the article. Neopetslovette 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Most definitely not. Typical vandalism given the topic. Good job taking care of that. DoomsDay349 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 'dominate'

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) 07:35, June 3, 2007.

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)

[edit] Saving throws?

Should the game mechanics section cover saving throws? — RJH (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay I stuffed something in there. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good work. Now you just need to Reference your statements. BreathingMeat 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Alan De Smet for taking care of that. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. 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):
  7. 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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] More sources

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. — Brian (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

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)

Thank you, Hdt83. — RJH (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct citation

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)

Fixed. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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)

[edit] Unsourced addition

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)

  • Will this do as a source? The Acaeum is pretty definitive. If so, please move the comment back into the article with reference, or I can as well. Fairsing 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I did find that site but it is not clear why that would be considered authoritative. The page doesn't even list an author; it just looks like some generic D&D fan web site. (Normally I would have just added a {{fact}} tag, but the page is currently undergoing a FAC so I didn't want to add any excuses for that to fail. Sorry.) — RJH (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the Acaeum is a widely recognized authority on older D&D materials - perhaps the single most authoritative source on the internet. But I agree about the FAC. If the consensus of other authors is that the Acaeum isn't autoritative enough (anyone else have an opionion on this?), then I'm ok leaving it out for now. Fairsing 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Widely recognized? Err, the Alexa ranking is 234,011, which is pretty low. I'd never even heard of it until yesterday: it just looks like an auction site rather than an academic source. Perhaps there's an article in an old Dragon issue that would work? There was also a pretty good book called Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role Playing Games (by Lawrence Schick) that might cover the topic, if somebody has a copy. (Unfortunately somebody stole mine. :-/) — RJH (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • P.S. The FAC isn't going to pass, so I put the text back with a Fact tag. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another unsourced

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 [citation needed] but seeing as we're trying to get to FA status I shifted it to here. BreathingMeat 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Got old gaming magazines? Old reviews would be helpful

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)

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)

Here's a place to collect citations; a scratch space: 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

3.5 Ed. D&D
3rd Ed. D&D
  • Pyramid (magazine):
    • "There's a lot to like about Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition as seen in the Player's Handbook. The new artwork is gorgeous and evocative, and in the 286 pages of the main rulebook there's a lot of well-written and tightly-packed rules." "As a game which is intended to bring new players into the hobby, with less than a quarter of a page devoted to explaining roleplaying and a couple of hundred pages devoted just to character creation, D&D 3rd Edition isn't doing much to make them feel welcome." "It's certainly good enough that disillusioned ex-D&D players might want to take a look at it. For new gamers the only thing going for it is the name and Hasbro's advertising money." "I've quipped before that D&D 3rd Edition would be the best game of 1987. I may revise the statement, but not the underlying sentiment." "More attention could have been paid to roleplaying and less to gaining new powers. As it stands, D&D has a more advanced system than ever, and it's a huge leap forward from AD&D 2nd Edition, but it can't seem to escape its wargaming roots." Mowery, Kevin (2000-08-18), "Pyramid Review: Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition", Pyramid
    • "The new Player's Handbook is a far better passport to that wondrous land than the old D&D books were, and a far better introduction to roleplaying than any other title out there." John, Deal (2000-08-25), "Pyramid Review, Take 2: Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition", Pyramid
2nd Ed. AD&D
1st Ed. AD&D

[edit] Synopsis of FAC

The article failed to be promoted. Here's a synopsis of the objections that were not addressed:

  1. Citations — More academic studies need to be cited. For example, Gary Alan Fine's Shared Fantasy.
  2. 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)

[edit] Notability

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)

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)
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article's statement about D&D being the inspiration for Tunnels and Trolls, RuneQuest, Chivalry and Sorcery and Empire of the Petal Throne is corroborated by a pair of online articles from a single, anonymous author:

On the other hand, if I look at Ken St. Andre's SFWA web page, he says nothing about being inspired by D&D. What's more, he even says his (T&T) was the first to bear a copyright notice. Does anybody happen to know of a more academically-solid reference for these factoids? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dungeons_%26_Dragons"
Personal tools