Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 1

Dungeons & Dragons
I'm nominating the D&D page because I feel like having just had its 30th anniversary, this gaming classic needs to be featured in order to spark new interest in it. Feel free to destroy this idea if you don't like it. --mathx314


 * W00t, yeah. Let's do it.--68.81.70.59 01:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess thats a Support  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]]


 * Support with conditions... it desperately needs a proofreading, I know there are spelling mistakes. it also could probably stand to have some of the subsections spun off into their own articles (its huge).  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 01:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Desperately needs more references (though some of the external links are helpful in this regard).  Remember that Wikipedia does not publish original research, so personal knowledge from an ill-spent youth does not qualify.  ;-)  Of course, the game books themselves are good references for the rules and publication history, but there are lots of statements about the economics, public/customer perceptions, Gygax's motivations, etcetera, whose sources are unclear to me.  &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 02:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with above comment on copyedits, in particular the annoying switching between D&D and DnD, and references.  Also: 1) it is unclear whether the manuals listed existed for each edition. 2) The article is very D&D-centric in that it is big on D&D's influence on other RPGs but not the influence on D&D of other games.  No mention of the revolution of gaming mechanics in the early 90s that made 2E THAC0 a game-stopper and led to numerous revisions in 3E.  Was the decline in 2E D&D a result of market share loss to other games or a loss of popularity of RPGs as a whole?  The end of "controversy" doesn't mention the influence WoD and horror RPGs like Cthulu on the Book of Vile Darkness.  Or how semi-generic systems like Palladium came up with the idea of multiple games using one system and led to D20.  There doesn't seem to be any mention of the criticisms of D&D within the gaming commmunity about "roll-playing", alignments as an unrealistic constraint, etc.  3) More specificity in place of "featured just a few character classes", "many purists...did not like" and "on some level CCGs... owe a respectful nod", or references would be useful.  4)  The departure of the founders of the game is a major event.  Why did it happen?  5) No mention of the short-lived comic book series "Dungeons & Dragons" and "Forgotten Realms" by DC, or the collectible trading cards.  BanyanTree 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support but only after rework. It is a very good article now, but I don't think it one of Wikipedia's best until more hard work goes into correcting the copyedits and references.  Johntex 19:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, great article with tons of information on a large subject. Copyedits couldn't hurt.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:19, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support!!!--Dapsone 01:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain, same reasons as Alkivar and Johntex. I did some resectioning, the article is good, but I cannot support it *until* they are adressed. History and legacy might be merged altogether, and critisims should be perhaps moved up and given some contrarguments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that history and legacy should be merged... they are two unrelated things. history is its development, legacy is what it has influenced since its creation, in other words History -> D&D -> Legacy -> XYZ. I feel those should be kept seperate.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Almafeta 04:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article on a somewhat maligned game. 129.177.61.124 09:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Was all this made up out of thin air? References are a basic criteria for featured articles. - Taxman 20:45, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object until references are added. Masterhomer 06:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object: aside from other good reasons already raised, the article fails to cover how the mismanagement of the D&D brand bankrupted TSR. -Sean Curtin 06:43, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone has moved this off of the Featured Article Candidates.  Is this intentional, or simply an act of vandalism? --mathx314 22:43 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support and Comment: D&D definitely deserves featured article. It was intentional, however I do not know why. LordMooCow 08:40 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)