Misplaced Pages

User talk:AFigureOfBlue: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:11, 13 January 2009 editAFigureOfBlue (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators53,878 edits Backlogged?← Previous edit Revision as of 03:28, 16 January 2009 edit undoReyBrujo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,722 edits Re: Maintenance: new sectionNext edit →
Line 249: Line 249:
::::::::::A few hardcore deletionists supported it; everyone else said "no way, dude." That's why it got reverted, which stuck. :) ] (]) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::A few hardcore deletionists supported it; everyone else said "no way, dude." That's why it got reverted, which stuck. :) ] (]) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::To be expected. -] (]) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::To be expected. -] (]) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Re: Maintenance ==

Not at all. I keep an eye on most of them, but I am on indefinite wikibreak, so it makes sense to remove those templates. -- ] (]) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:28, 16 January 2009

User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
The Signpost
15 January 2025


Archiving icon
Archives
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10

Small note

I added a note over on the discussion page for Demodand that might help that particular article. You've been making a bunch of contributions to random D&D articles of late (which makes you awesome) so I figured that I might mention it to someone capable of editing the article (I'd do it myself, but per that note on the discussion page, it might cause a tempest over perceived COI that one or two editors might jump on in a fit of wikilawyering).Shemeska (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for mentioning those. A quick question, then: Where might I find a source for the demodands being in The Great Beyond? Since you're the author I believe that you're telling the truth, but something needs to be published already to be able to cite it. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft module

Just a quick note - keep an eye on this thread and this thread. If you need me to ask/mention anything there, let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I knew about the one thread, but no the one about the Acaeum. I'll keep my eye on them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Turned up maybe something useful here? BOZ (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll mention something at the FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
As requested, I've added some additional content from the White Dwarf review of Ravenloft II. Please edit my contribution for consistency and length, and let me know if you need anything else from the early White Dwarfs. (Or from any Ravenloft products -- I think my Ravenloft collection is fairly complete.) Ant Brooks (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks. One other thing that would be nice is if you could clarify the PC's goal in the original I6 module; that's one of the requested things for the FAC, and I don't have the module myself. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... what do you mean by their goal? Their initial motivation for traveling to Barovia is a letter from the Burgomaster pleading for assistance in dealing with Ireena Kolyana's "affliction". (The letter also alludes to "much wealth" to motivate less philanthropic PCs.) This turns out to be a fake created by Strahd in order to lure the PCs into his kingdom, and Strahd's motivations for doing this depend on the result of the fortune telling process with Madam Eva. Once the PC become entwined in Strahd's plans, their goal is presumably to destroy the vampire and free Ireena Kolyana/Tatyana, but that's never specifically spelled out as such in the module. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant Brooks (talkcontribs) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's basically what I was looking for. So the module itself doesn't really say what the goal is, either? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Do they ever? :) I think they kind of rely on the players to figure that out (when it isn't completely obvious), although I suppose it is sometimes spelled out. "Oh, you mean that guy who's doing all this evil stuff, I guess we need to kill him and take his stuff." ;) BOZ (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
True. Very true. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much what BOZ said. Once they have been lured into Barovia, the adventure seems to assume that they will be motivated enough to investigate the castle and confront Strahd based on the nudges they get from the villagers and the fortune-telling scene. As an aside, what are the Misplaced Pages requirements for images? I think the article might benefit from more pictures, and I could probably take a photo of a selection of Ravenloft products through the ages (say I6, I10, the main 2nd Edition boxed set and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) if that would be useful. (Although it would be on my phone, so the quality wouldn't be fantastic. Ant Brooks (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-Thanks for the offer, but I think that any additional images would have to be free (i.e. not of the products themselves). Take a look at the FAC review for more information about the images... the article used to have a lot more images, but the fair-use rationales didn't work. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article hits page

Neat! That's a really cool idea. There's got to be a way to get a bot to do it (I sure wouldn't expect anyone to do that by hand for more than a few articles, and even then) but that's a damn cool idea. The original boxed set is actually getting more hits than I expected. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on putting a few more of the major articles that just aren't Top-importance on it right now. It shouldn't be too hard to do by hand, just once a month. Maybe an hour at the most. Some of the results from High-importance articles are actually quite surprising. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Going off the list that they made for the 0.7 project and picking off the top 20 with the most total hits, I'd suggest considering Faerun, Alignment, Dragon (the monster, not the mag), Drow, Death knight, Planescape, Beholder, Illithid, Ravenloft, Eberron, Lolth, Dark Sun, Magic of Dungeons & Dragons, Tiefling, Bahamut, and Tiamat. :) BOZ (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and can't wait to see how that turns out! BOZ (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Good ideas. I'll take a look at them. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I've finished updating it for now. It's rather sad how much orange and yellow there is. I guess we'll just need to fix it! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep! :) It's interesting how high Death knight is on the list, but I suspect that has a lot to do with people looking for something other than the D&D creature (WoW, probably). BOZ (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That's probably right. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I got tired of looking, but I found a couple more 7000+ hits articles: Raistlin Majere, and Dungeons & Dragons (TV series). You really do need to see if there's a bot you can run - maybe filter the whole watchlist into the thing and see what comes up where! BOZ (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add those two to the list if you haven't already. I'll look into finding a bot. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect category?

Do you know if there might be something wrong with the redirect category? I recently added Talk:The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy and Talk:The Parched Sea but they don't quite look right to me. :) BOZ (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ARRRRRG! It had been fixed! (for context, see Template talk:WPBannerMeta#NA importance error?) :) -Drilnoth (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, don't mean to be the bearer of bad news. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this has been fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gygax FAC

Hey there, did you see my latest comment? :) BOZ (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Now we can get that ref figured out a bit better. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, hopefully. :) I'm going to take a look at that, and a lot of the other interviews and sources, over the near future. BOZ (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, about all I can say is that we should focus as much as possible on known reliable sources. How about that Game Inventor's Guidebook - I'd milk that for as much as you can, as with any print source you might have access to. Where possible, we should replace cites from longbio and any sites of unproven reliability with cites from known reliable sources. I know I added a lot of longbio stuff today, but I just wanted to get that in there and we can worry about swapping out sources later. :) (see the article talk page for a bunch of additional stuff.) I'm going to look over the WotC website links and the obits because those might be some of the most reliable stuff we've got, and make sure they are as maxed out as they can be. Most of the other sources I've used have been questioned, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily unreliable, just uncertain. BOZ (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get what I can out of The Game Inventor's Guidebook, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible, Dungeons & Dreamers: The Rise of Computer Game Culture, and 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons. I'll probably work on that tomorrow; at this point I'm getting a bit tired and don't want to do anything too brainy. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Right on - good work so far. :) BOZ (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged if this doesn't make it on the first try. Dungeons & Dragons didn't make it until try #5. :) BOZ (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know; I think that failing an FAC only makes the next one more likely to pass. There's so much critiquing of the various errors that they can be fixed up and the next one can go more smoothly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep; the main difference between a GAN and a FAC (besides getting pickier) is that you can have several people picking it apart to find the stuff that needs fixing. BOZ (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've been busy tonight... just wait until you see. :) BOZ (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy - was I ever! Wait until you see the watchlist... and that was just from one source! I've got a dozen more or so (most with less info to be added), and although this was a primary source, most are not. I managed to get a few edits in on Gen Con while I was at it. Time for sleep. :) BOZ (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That's awesome! Keep it up! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm hardly done. :) I'm going to milk these sources for all they're worth... BOZ (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kyngdoms, did you see the note I placed on the FAC page? BOZ (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it looks like the Dragonsfoot site isn't reliable, either. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, merely unproven... although, in the end, there's really little difference. Guilty until proven innocent. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Time for a short break - I've got some RL stuff to do. :) I've dug through some primary WotC-provided sources, but there are a number of EGG obits, and interviews, and other sources that I have piled up to pick through for details... fun. :) BOZ (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I went and added a bunch of citations to info in the Believer mag article. I really didn't add anything from it, except a few incidentals and some rearrangement, but figured it wouldn't hurt to back up things already in there with something that agrees. :) Feel free to remove any of those cites which seem like too much. I did use the source to add information to a bunch of other articles, which I figure wouldn't be hurting anything. A shame that they didn't want to consider that a reliable source, as it is very detailed in places, and includes a unique feature: most of the time, you see Gygax talking about Williams and Blume and getting only his POV, but this guy actually went and found them to hear at least part of their side of the story. I'm done for the night - Merry Christmas. :) Don't know when I'll be on tomorrow, but Friday is another story. ;) BOZ (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Friday it is - I'm on for a moment, but that's about it. :) Hope you had a good one! BOZ (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Don't know if you're done for the night. The last source I'm going to look at again was the Kyngdoms interview. Since it was totally shot down as a reliable source for FAC, I'm not going to add anymore cites to it in the GG article as I did with the last one. Instead, I'm just going to see where it can be used in any less-than-GA articles. Hey, a questionable source is better than no source, I figure, and we could always replace it later if need be. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a good one, alright! Hope you did, too!
Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm completely done with that, exhausted, and have no interest in pursuing it further at this time. :) I think it's likely that I will edit Gary Gygax's article little if at all until the next FAC comes around... BOZ (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Hey, thanks for your message. I know the basics about wikis and editing, not a problem. But I have to admit that I don't know how to make a good profile for myself. If I can join the D&D projects, I am resolutely a classic D&D player: I play BEMC and RC rules almost exclusively, and am mostly interested in pre 3e stuff. So I'm not sure exactly where to start. C-Blade (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a place we can list what resources we have access to in case people have questions or need references? For example, I have the Cyclopedia, and I'd be happy to help someone out if they needed me to look up a reference. C-Blade (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Start anywhere! As for a reference listing, I'm hoping to make something like that in the near future. There's a lot going on right now, and there are other things that are higher on the to-do list (like the current Featured Article candidacy of Gary Gygax). If you'd like to join the project, that would be great! Players of all editions are welcome. You can join in here if you want. As for making a profile, I could help you out if you'd like (I assume you're referring to your user page).
If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of Lynn de Silva

Howdy! Thanks for reviewing Lynn de Silva! I've been waiting quite some time for a review, and I'm glad the article finally got one :-). I'm wondering why it was rated C-class though, as it seems to me to fit all the B-class criteria. It's been thoroughly referenced, too. Thanks for your time! Ldesilva (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; and good job! It looks live you've put quite a bit of work into it.. I gave it a C-Class rating for a couple of reasons, although I don't think that any of them would be too difficult to fix. Here's my advice:
  1. Some of the references are doubled up... references 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 appear to all be used only once and all for the same fact. That many citations aren't necessary in the lead; could you use information from those sources to reference other information in the article?
  2. Some of the Harvard references (like "Quoted in (Hallett 2007)") link to other footnote references; a bibliography (like in Edgar Allen Poe) or using the {{rp}} template would probably be better.
  3. There may be a few too many quotations; typically, longer quotations from other sources should only be used if doing so would better illustrate the point than prose would. Could some of the quotes be converted into prose? Additionally, some of the quotations aren't referenced.
  4. The list of publications could probably be trimmed, so that only the most important ones are included.
Otherwise, it looks good! Once those are resolved, I think that the article would be a solid B-Class, and probably not far from GA. Keep up the good work! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms locations

Hey there. I think I have found most of the non-merged FR-locations that had been simply redirected without merging. Regardless, I'm tired of all the warnings (some of them seemingly misplaced and confusing) on my talk page regarding that (especially after the last couple of days), so I've been thinking about it and I don't want to bother bringing any more back, and maybe shouldn't have done that many as it is. I merged a few of them into Abeir-Toril to beef that article up a bit. I think a lot of them should probably be merged into somewhere appropriate, but I'm not sure where. Faerûn seems inappropriate, as that would overly bloat the article, and Geographical index of Toril likewise. There were some regional articles previoulsy, but those got redirected as well, and some still are (namely Northwest Faerûn, North Faerûn, Northeast Faerûn, West Faerûn, Interior Faerûn, East Faerûn, Southwest Faerûn, South Faerûn, and Southeast Faerûn), so that may not be the way to go either. Maybe create some lists like List of Forgotten Realms locations (or just Forgotten Realms locations), List of Forgotten Realms cities, or something like that? Let me know what you think and I'll work with you on whatever might be most appropriate. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching your page; I think that many of the warnings are misplaced. People see you removed a lot of content from an article when you're actually splitting it and just assume its vandalism. For what should be done with the articles, I think that maybe having a few articles similar to List of Forgotten Realms countries, List of Forgotten Realms cities, and maybe another list for other locations, would be the best course of action right now. Maybe formatting them like List of Forgotten Realms characters would make sense? If you'd like I could create one or two stub articles for you to start merging the articles into. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think consolidating articles like these is part of one of our goals. :) Yeah, like the list of characters is the way we should go, which I think worked well. I like the idea of a list of countries and cities personally, and maybe some sort of page that merges all of those Faerun regions into one page with links to the countries and cities? Looking over the cities, I'd say Baldur's Gate (city), Neverwinter, and Waterdeep (city) are the most viable and should probably be kept as is, with most of the rest merged. Zhentil Keep would probably be worthy of its own article as well, if anyone had bothered to develop it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds about right. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If I have some time later, I might be able to help you out with that. Nice work with the template, BTW! BOZ (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It's going to take some time for all of the categories to get up to date, and there'll probably be some red ones until the current rename discussion ends and they're moved. I'll be listing most of the changes at WT:DND once most of the things are properly set up. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave you to that, then. :) BOZ (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look around at what articles and redirects there are, and see if I can map out a plan for consolidating this stuff. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a few redirects remaining under Faerûn, so it'll take some time and doing for me to get through those to see what's what. Some are simple redirects, and some have content underneath. However, I don't think that's any reason not to press on with merging some of the stubs we have up now, and hitting the current redirects later. BOZ (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
My conclusion would be that we could take the text under the above-mentioned redirects (Northwest Faerûn, North Faerûn, Northeast Faerûn, West Faerûn, Interior Faerûn, East Faerûn, Southwest Faerûn, South Faerûn, and Southeast Faerûn) and merge it into a single article, like List of Faerûn regions or something. To that, we would merge other articles that are non-country lands of Faerûn, and other mostly uninhabited geographical features (perhaps in a separate section?), for example: Anauroch, Chultan Peninsula, Cold Lands, Dalelands, Dragon Coast, Island Kingdoms of Faerûn, Lost Empires of Faerûn, Moonsea, Old Kingdoms (Forgotten Realms), Savage Frontier, Shining South, Silver Marches, Sword Coast, Unapproachable East, and Vilhon Reach. Those are places but not nations, which would include things like Amn (Forgotten Realms), Calimshan, Chessenta, Cormyr, Halruaa, Moonshae Isles, Mulhorand, Sembia, Tethyr, Thay (Forgotten Realms), and Unther. BOZ (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you'd be willing to start up List of Forgotten Realms cities and List of Forgotten Realms nations, I'd be more than happy to start merging articles into the lists with a quickness. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

All-righty. I'm finished with another round of sourcing (my remaining sources were deemed unreliable, so I won't be using them in the FAC, and possibly not in the GANs either), and I'm not quite ready for bed, so I might as well get a start on the nations list page. :) BOZ (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll add a few more, and then really get going when I have some more free time. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll start the cities list in the fairly near future. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, that one's up and running too. :) I'll start on the last one either tonight or tomorrow. Note that I suggested calling it List of Faerûn regions because places outside Faerûn are already mostly covered in the Abeir-Toril article. Do you have any opinion on what to call it, or should that suffice? BOZ (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I might go with List of regions in Faerûn, but it's up to you. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, and probably even better. I'll get to that when I get to it. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"I'll get to that when I get to it." I know what you mean. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I probably have a comparable list... but since I don't usually write them down, I often forget them. :) Sure, often enough I will remember later and then get to it... BOZ (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put about as much work into that as I care to. :) I'll get back to sourcing tomorrow (when I'm not too busy Christmasing). FYI: . BOZ (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Just so's you know, there's a response. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have responded. I also responded on the AFD - I seem to remember last year around this time there was a round of AFDs from one of our dearly missed former aggressors. Merry f**ing Christmas indeed! :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, here's an interesting read. BOZ (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That certainly is a, sadly, interesting read. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Palpatine

That was a good catch! Maybe we should get a list going of fictional elements (characters mainly, but I don't doubt that other types of fictional elements have gone through, like Spoo) which are at FA level, so we can see what examples we can point to for quality level. Off the top of my head, Batman and Superman were both there, as were Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson - even Troy McClure. :) Note that, of course, not all FA's have been on the front page yet. Maybe one day Drizzt Do'Urden, Strahd von Zarovich, Lolth or Lord Soth will join them.  ;) BOZ (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:C. M. Eddy, Jr....

Just a note, not sure if you noticed my reply... - Adolphus (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PRODs

I took a look at the anon who you warned, and noticed that the anon had mostly been adding PRODs, speedies, and notability templates to articles which had been created within the last 24 hours - so new articles are precisely what they are targetting! BOZ (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh. That is interesting. It's perfectly within his/her right to do that, although I hope that he/she does so carefully. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. BOZ (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gen Con GAN

Hey! :) See my recent comments on the talk page. BOZ (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have put some work into this one. Not sure what we can do about the history in between the early days and the internet era - most of that info is arcane in nature, and a lot of what is sourced is sourced to things which would probably be unsuitable for a FAC but which might pass the GAN. As it is, I'm not sure if it can even pass the GAN, but it's like 10 times better than it was. :) If there's anything else you want to do with it then cool, but I'm not sure what else I can do with it. BOZ (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks much better now! I'm not sure if it will make the GAN, but now we know for future reference. Good work! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn

I would strongly advise against pointing out policy to Hrafn in AfD discussions--he has his own interpretations, which are generally not community-supported when they diverge from actual consensus. In my experience, such has never resulted in Hrafn changing his position--attempting to win him over has, in my experience, at best resulted in him failing to acknowledge such arguments or attempting to shift the burden of proof; at worst, it's a recipe for frustration and may prompt you to lose your cool. My experience-prompted advice is to simply not respond to Hrafn in AfD discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sound advice - I try to do much the same when dealing with certain other editors. :) BOZ (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep; that's why I haven't responded yet there. Seems kind of pointless. :( -Drilnoth (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No need - this one is almost certainly heading for a Keep as it is. You've got three deletes (counting the nom), one merge, and 12 for keep. I have yet to see a 4-1 lose. :) BOZ (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been quiet lately

Any thoughts? :) BOZ (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I've been working on other stuff lately. I'll take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. :) Been busy myself! BOZ (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill

Here you go:

I10, Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill

Hickman, Hickman, Cook, Grubb, Johnson and Niles, artwork by Caldwell and Easley

Scenario for character levels 10–12, sequel to I6, Ravenloft. Gang written just before deadline by the whole TSR design staff. The vampire Strahd returns in a gothic adventure of Thing Man Was Not Meant to Know. Includes descriptions of the town of Mordentshire, some haunted moors, and a manor house, mapped in perspective.

004-484.1/900-86 48 p., large color map, outer folder. TSR, 1986.

From page 102 of Schick (1991).—RJH (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting!

It got a whole lot of looks while it was up for AFD. :) I'm going to check out a few more articles for the Article Hits page. See the talk page for some notes I added. BOZ (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh; not something that I expected to see. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it's still getting a lot of hits! Don't know if that's just residuals from the AFD ending or if that one's going to be more popular than I thought. :) Over 100 hits per day would put it on the Artice Hits page for sure. ;) If I'm not busy, I'll update that tomorrow around this time. BOZ (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A hundred hits per day would put it in at about 3,000 per month, certainly good to keep an eye on but not necessarily to be on the list itself. I was planning to work on that update, too. Regardless, I think that we should have a new table for each month so that we can easily look back at previous months' counts. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if that's how you wanted to do it. Sounds good, then we can make comparisons. I'll let you start that off (you can really start it at any time, and just plug in the numbers any time after the Misplaced Pages clock hits New Years) and then I'll jump in sometime tonight or tomorrow. :) BOZ (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is one to keep an eye on - think of it as the opposite end of the spectrum from Gavin. I'm considering tossing up an outside view after enough people have signed off on naughty Pixel. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; I might check in on it every once in awhile. At this point in time, I'd rather not get involved in discussion regarding another dispute, but I will say that your outside view is excellently worded. It almost makes me want to go help at WP:FICT a bit -not like Pixel does, of course- and the only reason I haven't yet is because of proximity to Gavin. Misplaced Pages policy discussions should definetely include people on all sides of the issues; I'll probably look more closely into policy/guideline work for a little while. Hope all goes well on that RFC! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved with it personally myself - that's why I used the outside view. ;) Just figured it would be good to speak my piece, and getting an endorsement from Protonk definitely makes me warm and fuzzy. :) As far as getting involved in policy discussions, yes they can use support from someone like you. I won't encourage you to do that though, as it's really nice having you working on D&D, so it will have to be up to you how you handle that. :) BOZ (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry; I'm still going to spend most of my time on Misplaced Pages on D&D stuff. Policy can be on the sidelines and mainly focusing on the guidelines and proposals that affect the D&D project more than other projects. I'm not going to start conversations at WP:NOT or WP:V anytime soon, but perhaps at WP:FICT and WP:WAF. And I'm not even sure if I'm going to work on it at all. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's cool either way, I'm just being selfish. :) Misplaced Pages needs you more on policies than it does on D&D articles, but you must work on what you want to do. :) BOZ (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Treant

Please see Talk:Treant for the rationale behind why I changed the redirect. The intent was not to suggest it's simply a ripoff of Tolkien's Ents; rather, I wanted a place where discussion of the topic could take place without seeming out of place. Paliku (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but someone looking up Treant would presumably want to see something related more to D&D; a Treant is similar to an Ent, but they are different creatures, so I think that having one redirect to the other wouldn't be as useful for a reader. Additionally, in my opinion, having conversation on most D&D creatures in one place is a better solution than having one or two discussions on other pages that aren't even a part of the D&D WikiProject. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, is there a page more appropriate than a release list of D&D expansions? That was my main concern - being redirected to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976)#TSR 2002 - Dungeons & Dragons "white box" (1974) would still leave a curious reader asking, "So what is a treant?" The only description on the list is "Tree-like creatures able to command trees". Paliku (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need a Plant creature (Dungeons & Dragons) page to contain all the stuff that used to be on Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and all the other plant critters out there. BOZ (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Not exactly; some of the other monster lists may include more information on the creature, but the D&D project tends to redirect monster articles to the earliest edition that they appeared in. It's not the best solution, but it works for now until we can come up with something better. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
BOZ's idea sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If this comes to fruition, feel free to change the redirect and re-link Treant on the Ent page. I made sure to note on the article talk page that my assertion wasn't that "WoW > D&D" or something, and also made the redirect more specific (for now) to where the term Treant was already bolded. Paliku (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's been on my "To Do (eventually)" list for some time now. :) BOZ (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragons of Despair

The article Dragons of Despair you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dragons of Despair for things needed to be addressed.

Yes, I can help with White Dwarf #60, what do you need from that for Dragons of Despair?Ant Brooks (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I can also check WD 60 later today/tonight. Web Warlock (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! The reviwer said that this line sounded like it might not be NPOV, and if the citation was quoted exactly rather than paraphrased it would be much more neutral: "It was seen as well written and presented with a unique feel to the world it is set in, even if it was felt the plot of taking a powerful magic item to the heart of the enemies defences was lifted straight out of The Lord of the Rings. " -Drilnoth (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, I de-lazified myself and got some threads going: , , . BOZ (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The exact quote from the review is "The adventure itself is very much taken off from LotR with a powerful magic item to be taken at all costs to the aggressor's innermost defences and through them. The characters will have to get past a nice new race of humanoids as well as a couple of other monster-concepts. The artwork (aside from the cover) is good and usable in the adventure. Another good product!"Ant Brooks (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks. I've added it to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm... having now actually looked at the article, you may need the rest of the review. The entire review is only two paragraphs. I've reproduced the second paragraph above, so here's the first: "Tracey (sic) Hickman, designer of the excellent I-series, has come up with another very reasonable set of scenarios - DL1 (Dragon Lance (sic) series Dragons of Despair. She (sic) has got hold of a concept and designed a world an a heroic adventure to go with it. The world of Krynn and the heroic adventure is heavily based on... Lord of the Rings. But never mind all the parallel plotlines, there's enough difference in the world to put such minor considerations out of most players' heads. Like gold, for example. Nice stuff, eg? Pity its (sic) worthless on Krynn. Fancied playing a cleric for a change? Sorry no clerics in Krynn for 300 years. Pleasantly enough, these changes don't destroy the feel of the scenario, whilst creating a very novel atmosphere. A lot of work has gone into designing the groundwork before the adventures were detailed, I'm sure, and it is a pity that more couldn't be shown in appendices etc so that the atmosphere could be more fully appreciated." And having typed that in, I must say that it is a dreadfully written review, and I feel almost guilty for assisting with a reference to something so poorly written ;) Ant Brooks (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not sure how that could fit into the article at this time, but thanks for the info. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: BOZ (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow; quite a bit of conversation there! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Anything you want me to add, to get the topic back on track? ;) BOZ (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't really think of anything... it looks like the nomination's going to pass, anyway, and at this time I don't really know how else to improve the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment Question

Thank you once again for the welcome. Several days ago I filed the Avlis article, spanning the namesake campaign setting and Neverwinter Nights persistent world, for reassessment within the Video Games WikiProject. I got a fairly helpful reassessment. Where do I request reassessment for the Dungeons&Dragons WikiProject as well? In this very case it is more a matter of synchronizing its standing in both projects, before reworking the article. --VoidHamlet (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:DND/A (I hadn't thought to add in a requests section before, although I will now). -Drilnoth (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WOTC FAC

Just so you know, I added several refs tonight that I found from other articles. If any turn out to be unreliable, you may remove them. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I noticed. I, personally, think that they all look pretty good. Nice work! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Coolness - feels like a productive day, then. :) BOZ (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Backlogged?

Just a quick off-topic comment... so much for the notability template not being a ticking timebomb for deletion; User:B. Wolterding is PRODding/AFDing all the Sept-Oct 2007 notability templated articles one by one. BOZ (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah, that's what I thought caused the backlogs to be resolved... just removing articles from them after a certain time. Personally, I think that his rationale ("No evidence of notability given, none added in more than one year") is pretty weak; the notability part could make sense, but Misplaced Pages is not on a timer. Deleting articles simply because they haven't had their notability established in over a year doesn't mean that their notability can't be established; rather the backlogs exist for the exact purpose of cleanup, not deletion.
That said, did you know that {{importance}} adds articles to the same category? -Drilnoth (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured as much; at least all the year-plus tagged articles are in much less danger of immediately being nominated. I suspect that they'd all be getting put up by BW right now if the templates hadn't been switched out. That will give us a lot more time to deal with the less notable ones and get them merged or whatever, or just not worry about it on the ones more likely to survive an AFD. :) BOZ (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, admins seem generally willing to restore articles for merging and improvement, as long as we can keep track of all the previously deleted articles. That's also part of the reason that I, personally, probably won't be working much on the less important articles until Gavin can be a little more understanding of others views, since the article's can be restored and important articles are... well... more important. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly right; that's why I'm not too worried. I will personally probably focus some of my own efforts on merging things before Apr 1, just because that will leave less things open to him and others who share his interests. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, but wouldn't three months since Gavin signed Casliber's proposal be March 10? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think he mentioned April 1 as an end date. BOZ (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay; I guess I just missed that somewhere. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
heh. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. You know, Gavin's proposal on the talk page for that specific change had no consensus for it that I know of (I haven't checked it since yesterday, though). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A few hardcore deletionists supported it; everyone else said "no way, dude." That's why it got reverted, which stuck. :) BOZ (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To be expected. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maintenance

Not at all. I keep an eye on most of them, but I am on indefinite wikibreak, so it makes sense to remove those templates. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)