Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 11

A-Class?
I can't quite figure this out: Is an A-class article better that a GA-class article? And does an article need to be GA-class to become A-class? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been terminally confused on that myself. :) I'm fairly certain that an A-class article is a GA-class that has been peer-reviewed or something to say that it's better than just a GA-class? Now that we've got a few GA's, we might want to look into what we can do to get some A's, and eventually more FA's. BOZ (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria for some explanation. Basically there should be some formal review process for an article to be rated 'A'.  Of course, if you're going for an 'A' rating, it's probably close enough to go for an 'FA' rating that you might want to try to fix any last stylistic issues and go for the 'FA' rating anyway.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 16:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I quote: "For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.". So maybe when someone thinks that a GA-class article should be made into an A-class, we could list the article on the Class Reassessment section of the Announcements on the project page and actually discuss it on the involved article's talk page. I'll see if I can come up with a good image to use in the "Featured Content" section for A-class articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment/Importance tables
Shadzar, I see that you had just added additional tables into the right panel. While it is a logical change, the effect this had on the main page was, to be frank, horrible. Additionally, most all of the information that you had added can be accessed easily already; the tables consisted primarily of links to various categories, and the single table already on the main page already contains most of those links. If you think that there should be those additional tables, might I recommend using a subpage? I've undone your edit for now, but please feel free to discuss your reasoning for the change here so we can come to a conclusion. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dungeons & Dragons video games
I went and tossed the D&D template on everything in this category which didn't already have it, FYI. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll update the public watchlist. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya missed a few... I'll catch em. :) BOZ (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... thanks. I was in a rush to get to work on the D&D barnstar, so I guess that some just slipped through the cracks. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh... wow. That's more than "some". Where were they? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * De nada. ;) It pays to check the contribs history! It looks like the rest of those were in subcats. Which reminds me, at some point we may want to check through the various categories and make sure all the articles are actually on board with the project. That'll take some time, so finish anything you've got planned first. :) I've tried hard to make sure everything has our project template on it, but there are probably still a lot more out there... but we're the shepherds looking for lost sheep. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, one thing I forgot to mention - I noticed that the list category items are not on the watchlist. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They're in their own section at the bottom. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your non-list comment, I agree. We do need to go through and find them... sometime. Right now I've been working on a lot of stuff, so that's lower on my list, but you can certainly start if you want to and I'll join in when my list is a bit more free (just take a look at my user page for my slightly-large list of goals). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I picked out a few more; I'll look for more soon. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got a whole bunch of DL & FR novels articles as well. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Added those to the watchlist. BOZ (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Got some Greyhawk pages now; there are a bunch, and I'll get them bit by bit. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get those on the watchlist - looks like Gavin is on a tear again. BOZ (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Template, take 2
I've started work on making two navboxes which, when combined, would be comprehensive. Here's what I have for the "Gameplay" navbox, as opposed to the still-to-be-created "Worlds" navbox.

What do you think? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me - but maybe I'm just not picky. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you rather have two navboxes or one giant one? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What was on the other one? BOZ (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The other one of the two navboxes I'm thinking of would be a "world" navbox (it's still under construction, that's why I didn't post it here). The one that you see here would be used for articles about Dungeons & Dragons, character building, rulebooks, companies, people, etc., and the other would be for specific creatures (I need to move that out of this navbox), deities, novels, locations, settings, unique characters, and the like. The single giant navbox was discussed above (I think that the discussion might be archived at this point, but I'm not sure). -Drilnoth (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The character races and classes section suffers badly form recentism. Maybe just having those oddities be their own section would be fine such as races, monsters, settings, etc and let people go from there to find things instead of trying to single out specifics. Because the settings section also has "others" which is not that good, nor is it helpful if you are trying to list them all. shadzar-talk 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My goal with the races and classes was to have all "core" races and classes from all editions of the game. Is there a race or class in a core rulebook from before 3rd edition that isn't on the list? The simple fact is that newer editions have more options than the older ones. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I am unde5rdtanding what you say, and your inclusion of the setting specific Genasi, then you would need to include all setting specific playable races from each edition....that means just about every monster race.....Also your and my definition of "core" may be different than what is currently being used as with 4th edition ALL material is meant to be core, in that nothing stands alone from anything else and is completely interchangeable within the system. There is no such thing as just the 3 core books anymore. So it would be near impossible to have an infobox/etc include everything as it comes out over time. This thing need quick links to the most common things throughout all editions. Sadly that means there are really only 3 classes that are core to D&D (fighter/fighting men, mages, clerics), and only a few races as well. Remember elf was a class in one edition of the game...so to be fair to history it is really impossible to denote those thiings individually. That is why I just suggest a list of types of things, and then the articles they link to could expound on them for each eidtion, otherwise you would need a box for each edition and the 4th edition box would pretty much contain every D&D related article as "everything is core" in its design and intent of use. =O They did not make this easy for us to be unbiased towards recent events in regards to D&D. shadzar-talk 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point with the genasi; I'll remove them and the drow. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
The D&D barnstar's done! You can see it on the WP:D&D main page. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
FYI: BOZ (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, jeez. Wasn't he always doing the same thing as Gavin? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically. But mostly as a back-up, kind of follow-the-leader sort of thing. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I thought. Fortunately though, Gavin hasn't been doing much on the gaming front, and if JM was just backup then there shouldn't be much trouble. And if there is, we can try to politely explain to him that we plan on going through every D&D article and doing a FULL CLEANUP, and the addition or AfD nominations of more articles would actually slow the process down. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

D&D Notability Guideline
Wow. I just found this, and now I'm really going to try and work on creating a General Dungeons & Dragons Guideline for Inclusion in Wikipedia (or something to that effect). Maybe soon I'll open up a subpage here so that we can all discuss what should be in it... once we have a firm guideline (and maybe alert Gavin to it so that there can be some input from the opposing viewpoint), that might help us avoid large-scale disagreements in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Danger Will Robinson ! Given the contentious discussions that have happened at WP:FICT (and other places), as well as various other discussions about notability in general (scattered around various talk pages), trying to create a "notability guideline" for D&D articles is likely to fail (and probably rightly so).  The creation of a notability guideline for articles under any one specific WikiProject will be looked upon as highly dubious and self-serving to that WikiProject.  There are these proposed notability guidelines for toys and games (with emphasis on the word proposed) that may be of interest to this WikiProject, but I think there are many editors that don't look kindly on the sub-guidelines for notability, thinking that they are trying to create "exceptions" to the general notability guidelines.  The subject specific guidelines are those in the top right-hand box on that page, and a set of proposed guidelines are below those.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My plan wasn't to design exceptions, but rather to compile a list of pertinent guidelines and rules with some sample applications. Basically, it could be used to determine if an article should be created in the first place, but not to determine notability if there ever was an AfD. Thank you for the advice, Model B-9, Class M-3 General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Robot. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

New Minor Tasks Section
I've reworked the minor tasks section of the main page so that it should be updated weekly, and so that it gives more precise goals. What do you think? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Drow image
Does anyone know what might be a good image for Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)? I'm going to try really improving the article and an image would be helpful. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We could get a fair use image from Wizards.com's Drow of the Underdark art gallery. For a single image, I'd recommend "Constant Guardian" by Franz Vohwinkel, as it's the only one with a good view of both a male and female Drow. With two images, I'd recommend either "Constant Guardian" and "Elves" by Todd Lockwood (on the 5th page of the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting gallery) or one image with a good view of a male Drow and one with a good view of a female Drow. If you're going to use three or more images, I'd recommend "Elves", at least one image with a good view of a male Drow and at least one with a good view of a female Drow. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't know whether or not images from the art galleries could be used under fair use... I'm guessing I'd need to reduce their resolution, right? Also, right claim of fair-use do you think would work? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't know much about American fair use law, however I just skimmed Non-free content, and it's stricter than I thought it was. It seems that the policy only allows "paintings and other works of visual art" and "other promotional material" is only acceptable when used for critical commentary. Also, according to the policy "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.". It looks like you might need to find some fan art with a free license. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But is fan-art genuinely free? I remember we had a discussion about that long ago, and we thought that fan-art is derivative of WotC's non-free content - i.e. descriptions and/or illustrations in the source manuals. BreathingMeat (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the Illithid article has used a fan art image for over a year without any complaints. I've brought up the issue of the seemingly pointless critical commentary clause at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/AMThu, 18 Dec 2008 06:15:11 +00002008-12-18T06:15:11+00:000615vUTC 39. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There used to be a lovely fan-art Beholder at Image:beholder.jpg which was used on the talk page for Beholder to clarify what the article was about. It was deleted a couple of times, with reason "copyvio". I hope this policy changes because it seems silly that we cannot illustrate the monster articles, even by drawing pictures ourselves. Especially in light of the fact that there IS fan-art being published all over the Internet with no trouble from WotC. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it really was fan-art that was released into the public domain, I'd assume that the deleter just thought that it was a copyvio, and now it could probably be restored. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It also says that there's an image with the same name at Commons in the most recent deletion entry, but there isn't. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also regarding images in general, I've added one to Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that there were some misunderstandings regarding the commons' policies. The image on commons on July 11th due to violating Commons:Derivative works. The local version was deleted on October 29th last year due to allegedly meeting the I8 speedy deletion criterion, despite the image violating the contemporary version of the commons' policy on derivative works, and despite the contemporary version of the deletion policy restricting I8 to images which do not violate the commons' policies. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked Maxim to to undelete it here. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed your talk-page link. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons:Derivative works seems very clear and explicit on the matter of using derivative works to illustrate articles about copyrighted works. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Whether or not correct procedure was followed in the deletion of the Beholder picture, it remains the case that we should not be using it. Sadly it appears that many of the monster articles should remain unillustrated, and that the Illithid image should probably go too. Of course, this does not apply to monsters whose appearances are not subject to copyright, such as centaurs, giant spiders, etc. BreathingMeat (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons:Derivative works only applies to the Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines are Non-free content, Non-free content criteria and Image use policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's encouraging. However, there is no free use rationale on Image:Mindflayer.jpg (which will presumably fail its contention to enter the Wikimedia Commons) so it remains in danger of deletion until it gets a free-use rationale. So the question is: Can we meet the Significance criterion for non-free content use in the case of using a derived-work image to illustrate a Wiki article on a WotC copyrighted monster? Does anyone want to suggest a sample free-use rationale? Which image copyright template should we be using? BreathingMeat (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-(I made the image into a link because of its size. I hope you don't mind.) -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As an idea, would a combination fair-use/free license make the images work in Wikipedia (although not Commons)? Something like on Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The minis image uses the "Non-free 3D art" template, so fair use justification in its case would depend on the articles discussing the artworks illustrated, rather than the characters they represent. Because the articles for which fair use is claimed discuss the use of the actual figures as part of playing games, I guess fair use applies. But unless our monster articles were about the artworks themselves (or the artist who produced them) then I don't think any of the "Non-free Art" templates can apply. BreathingMeat (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great news! I think that I've found a way to use even official Wizards/TSR images to illustrate monsters and such: Non-free character. I first saw the rationale here; do you think that it would work? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The danger with that is the Respect for commercial opportunities aspect of non-free content use. If we use WotC images to illustrate Wiki articles, that could be seen as damaging WotC's ability to use their artwork as an inducement to visit the official websites and/or buy their illustrated sourcebooks. I think that's a fair objection. BreathingMeat (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would not preclude us from using non-commercial fan-art, though. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a fair objection, although I think that we should present that tag to whoever would be working with the Mind Flayer and Beholder images to request undeletion and to request that they be left in Wikipedia (since they probably would be deleted in Commons). Any idea who that might be? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Try Maxim. Good luck - This may be our best chance. BreathingMeat (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He's asking for a fair use rationale, could someone familiar with Wikipedia's fair use policies and guidelines handle it? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been restored. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the use of miniatures from the art in online stores? That's widely distributed already, and could illustrate a number of monsters. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect that art is used by permission of WotC for the purpose of selling minis. BreathingMeat (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Alert
Gavin has been adding Notability tags to articles again. I've been replacing them with Importance tags whenever I see them (hooray for the public watchlist!), but I thought that you might all want to know. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed - a brilliant idea you had there. Thanks for catching those - no idea if he will be satisfied with the importance tag rather than the notability tag; they say essentially the same thing, although the latter has a much harsher tone to it. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment to his talk page. Also, the watchlist isn't my idea; I saw it at WikiProject The Simpsons when I was working on designing the new main page. So far it's made it really easy to catch bad edits by various people (I reverted blatant vandalism to Fighter (Dungeons & Dragons) thanks to it), but the credit should really go the WP:DOH, not me. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a good find then. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you beginning to experience the fun we've all had over the past year? ;) BOZ (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew what fun you had even before now. Personally I think that Gavin is making it more difficult for us to add reliable sources by putting a timer on the articles, and I've told him as such. Any help on his talk page would be nice. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's one of those people who agrees with everything on this page. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't know any proper way of dealing with him; getting him to agree to mediation was the only effective method, and that just stalled him for several months. Every argument you, I, or anyone else I've seen has been deflated by his circular logic, so arguing with him has proven pointless. Even if you can somehow get him to see where you're coming from, he'll just change his argument around to something advantagous to his POV. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you've had your fill of circular conversation. Oy vey. :) BOZ (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

-Split into subsections for ease of readability-

Administration
NOTE: The following is simply speculation and, at this time, I do not want it to happen. I am simply stating a possible outcome of the situation. "If he continues like this, administrator intervention might be possible because he has disrupted the project when we were just about to start work. Maybe ban him from editing D&D articles?" -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check out the talk page archives here, you'll notice that there was a strong sentiment to take him to the Arbitration Committee rather than attempting mediation. I am extremely hesitant to jump into such a thing, but if he continues to be disruptive to our project and how we're trying to improve it, I think that's an option we may wish to explore. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, would not want to need to do that, but I feel right now like I can hardly leave the computer because he'd pounce on all the articles I've been trying -honestly trying- to fix. That really can't go on for a week or more. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Try over a year and see how you feel. :) BOZ (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine. We've already generated 1,481 words of non-encyclopedic text on Gavin's talk page, and that's in just one hour. 1,481 words that could probably have cleaned up three D&D articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like Gavin's offline now... now is our time to strike! Clean up as many D&D articles as you can before time runs out! ;) -Drilnoth (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL - good luck. :) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want a topic ban for Gavin, take it to AN/I; but, as BOZ notes below, I don't have much net access at the moment and thus don't have the time required to read over the offenses. -  Jéské  Couriano  ( v^_^v ) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding now even if you don't have much access... I hope that you get it back soon. Anyway, BOZ, take a look at Yeth hound (Dungeons & Dragons). Then look at it before my massive edit. It only took about half and hour, too; we can keep doing that IF Gavin lets up a little bit. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it - it now looks as if I would have done it myself. :) Of course, it was pretty close already... BOZ (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeske Couriano
One option, there is an administrator (Jeske Couriano) who felt both that Gavin was a problem, as was anyone simply removing the notability templates. If you explain to him what you have been doing, he might just see it your way and come help out. And then he might not. :) BOZ (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip; I've asked him. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like he is bereft of internet for the moment. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Points at the reason I reverted anyone wholesale-reverting notability templates -  Jéské  Couriano  ( v^_^v ) 19:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, really, Jarlaxle turned out to be Grawp? Man, that's a doozy. Is he still giving you trouble? If Jack Merridew comes back, I don't expect Grawp to let up on him either. BOZ (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All he's doing now is whipping eunuchs into a frenzy against everyone who dared block him, so I don't think he's going to bother Merridew (at least for a little while). -  Jéské  Couriano  ( v^_^v ) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)