Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:25, 24 July 2006

Welcome!

Hello Robbstrd, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Greyhawk

I notice you have been adding articles to the Category:Greyhawk, while I have been removing them from it. I guess we should discuss our reasoning.

I believe the articles should not be in the general Greyhawk category, as this makes the category bloated. Furthermore, many of the articles you added, don't really deal with the Greyhawk campaign setting, even if they are canonically true in that setting. Adding all these points to greyhawk is redundant, surely. Perhaps we could compromise, atleast with the modules, by creating Category:Greyhawk modules and add modules that are advertised as being for use with the Greyhawk setting to it. The Greyhawk modules category would then be added to the general modules category, so that users interested in general modules can find all modules there, while greyhawk users can find their specific modules there.

I do not (yet) agree with adding all gods mentioned in Greyhawk to the category Greyhawk, as these gods exist in the entire standard cosmology.

-- Ec5618 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Category:Dungeons & Dragons modules. I have added a subcategory for all Greyhawk modules, Category:Greyhawk modules, including modules that can be used for Greyhawk as well as others. Feel free to create similar subcategories for the other campaign settings, and feel free to add articles to the subcategory. Please do not add modules to the general Category:Greyhawk. -- Ec5618 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to express a general note of confidence, you seem tireless.

Thanks. :) Robbstrd 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed WikiProject Role-playing games? It was recently created, and still lacks direction, but could use your signature. Preferably as a participant. -- Ec5618 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks interesting. It looks like it needs more D&D people. Robbstrd 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 23-Jan, you blanked Greyhawk Adventures. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. Your edit summary was "Grehawk adventures is a hardback book for the setting, & shouldn't be redirected." However, a redirect to a semi-relevant page is much better than a blank page. If you wish to turn it into a stub, that's fine, but please don't blank. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

Hi, I notice you've been changing the spelling from "Dungeons & Dragons" to "Dungeons and Dragons" in a number of articles. "Dungeons & Dragons" is the correct rendering according to sourcebooks and the official website, so this is the spelling Misplaced Pages articles should use. --Muchness 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just habitual for me to spell things out.Robbstrd 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem :) --Muchness 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

References in D&D articles

Hi, just wanted to clarify what you meant about me changing references. Was it that you wanted me to use the reference format as described on the project page or the specific order that references should be listed? All I've been using is the standard {{cite book}} template to make references. I apologise if ive undone something important. -- Lewis 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay I understand, I've just been reading through your recommendations for references format on the project page and it would appear that they are almost identical to the layouts produced by using the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} templates. I'd advocate switching to using these, since in my mind it is much harder to make mistakes with these and a uniform appearance across all articles in guaranteed. Additionally since it is widely used across wikipedia it would give the RPG articles more credibility perhaps? Since data such as ISBN an be easily included, sources can be found quickly by readers. Theres nothing wrong with your method, just something to consider. Hope you dont mind my suggestion. -- Lewis 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk Deity Template

Nice Touch!  :)

Melf

Someone deleted the Melf article for no apparent reason, but I restored it. We may need to keep an eye out for stuff like this. BOZ

here's the proof

and Tenser.

see talk:Melf. —Charles P._(Mirv) 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

melf again

This was the content of Melf (written by User:Ulgoikez) at the time I deleted it, less a {{delete}} tag:

Dear Melf,

    I am writing to you today to tell you of a number of things that might intrest you. 

— The Journal is up and running and those involved have been eliminated — Those who wern't eliminated who should have been eliminated have been eliminated — Your clothes are ready to pick up from the cleaners and — Le cheese has been purchased

    I hoped you will use this information to your advantage. Those of you who were involved in the ******* **** *** (This segment has been edited out for confidenciality)

— Slater Victoroff — Connor Fordham — Gestire Grapes

nothing to do with anything, as far as I can tell. —Charles P._(Mirv) 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk detail

I just wanted to say thanks for your admirable focus on detail in terms of getting everything for Greyhawk-related articles exactly right. I'ts good for Misplaced Pages that there are editors as careful as you are to get the details really nailed down (e.g. your fixes over the last day or so to From the Ashes. Thanks! Fairsing 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--both for noticing, & for your own contributions to Greyhawk on Misplaced Pages. My goal is to make Misplaced Pages the most comprehensive Greyhawk source on the web.--Robbstrd 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shackled City

Nice touch, adding the blurb about Cauldron's fate to the Shackled City page. I had not thought to do that. -Harmil 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it better to place the blurb there, as the event was part of the AP.-Robbstrd 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeenoghu

Thanks for the edits on the Yeenoghu article. I'm still learning Misplaced Pages, and you cleaned up the formatting a lot better than I could have. Appreciate it!

NP. Thanks for your contributions.--Robbstrd 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

30 Greatest Reference

Hey, I noticed you've been changing all of the 30 Greatest D&D Adventures references tags to "Erik Mona, James Jacobs, et al". That effectively removes all of the links I built that point to Dungeon Design Panel, which I think is an interesting little page (although probably more POV than other articles I will post in the future).

Any particular reason you did this? I'm still trying to get the hang of how to contribute to Misplaced Pages vis a vis dos and don'ts, so if there's something I'm missing, please let me know.

Thanks!

--Erik Mona Iquander 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Touchy, Touchy! :)

Lots of people would want the Dungeon Design Panel page deleted? I can't imagine why. Is there a finite number of Wiki pages out there?

The panel consisted of some of the most influential D&D designers on the occasion of the game's 30th anniversary. As far as I know, it is the only professional attempt _ever_ to apply critical analysis to the "canon" of D&D adventures, which I should think makes it of interest to the D&D community. Yeah, it's only one article, but I think it's important to know who was on the panel for the messages about the individual adventures' rankings to have the weight they should have.

It is, I suppose, possible that I have crawled up my own ass on this. I allow for that.

Let me put it this way. A year or so after the first edition "Fiend Folio" came out, Dragon published two pretty scathing reviews of it, one by Ed Greenwood, of all people. I suspect, eventually, that some quotes from these articles might appear on the Fiend Folio page, because showing the critical reception to the work is an important bit of context that enhances the Misplaced Pages entry on that particular book.

Like I say, I am learning more about how to contribute to the encyclopedia by the hour, but I am frankly taken aback by the suggestion that these are not worthwhile additions.

My bruised ego will get over it. :) Iquander 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk Wikiproject

I'm very interested in something like this. I think I'll find it maddening trying to figure out what I can and can't post seeing as how I've written or edited so much stuff, but I can certainly make some suggestions regarding which articles ought to be online and am more than happy to contribute to a discussion about posting conventions, etc.

By the way, I cannot believe there is a wiki stub for the Able Carters Coaching House. Nice call plugging River of Blood into that one. You certainly know your stuff! --Iquander 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, comrade! Give me a few days to research how to get started on the Wikiproject--I've got some things to catch up on, plus I've got to prepare to run my AOW game tomorrow.Robbstrd 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Et Alling

I'm thinking that "tidying up" all of the multi-author entries is a bad idea, and should be stopped. Let me give an example why. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was written by me, Sean Reynolds, Gary Holian, and Fred Wiening. I coordinated the project, but I didn't have much to do with wide swaths of the writing. Sean did the gods. Fred did the Baklunish lands, Gary did the Sheldomar Valley, etc. Listing only one author is problematic because it is impossible for readers to know who wrote what. Also, which author do you list? I note that I'm listed as the LGG author ("Erik Mona, et al") in a lot of places. Why? Because I coordinated the project? Because I happened to be listed first? Shouldn't Holain, whose name is lowest in the alphabet, be listed first? I think a better option is simply to list all of the authors. It's not like we're hurting for space, and I think we should err on the side of providing the most information. What do you think? --Iquander 07:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it probably would depend on how many authors we're talking about. In general, I think anyone credited as the author on the cover should be listed (as in the case of the LGG--I'm not sure who's been et alling there, but I assure you it hasn't been me. In fact, Gary is listed first on the cover, not you ).

Now, in the case of something like a Monster Compendium, where we'll have a dozen or more authors, I think listing everyone is a bit much, so I'd prefer we stick with either the editor/project head/coordinator/etc (ie, whoever's name is at the top of the credits page) or the lead author's name, et al. Now, as far as how many authors we should list, I would prefer something managable, say 3 or 4, UNLESS there are more credited on the cover. I've noticed in many of the monster entries, the creator of the monster is credited in the text of the article, though their name may not appear in the references section. Thoughts?--Robbstrd 21:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Hiya, I got your message on my talkpage and looked both at your edits and at the Style section and am a bit confused as to why either an ISBN link isn't considered an availability URL or, failing this, why the RPG WikiProject isn't following general Misplaced Pages MoS? If you could direct me to the appropriate discussion regarding this, I'd quite appreciate it! Thanks! (Oh, btw, moved your note to the bottom of the talkpage so it's where people normally peek at for new messages, hope ya don't mind!) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about editing your user page. It really was poor judgement on my part. Won't happen again. --Polkapunk 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Robbstrd 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wind Dukes of Aaqa

In Wind Dukes of Aaqa, why the change of section name from "Oriental Adventures" to "The Wind Dukes in Oriental Adventures"? It makes the section name rather bulky compared to the rest of the article, and isn't it assumed that in the "Wind Dukes of Aaqa" article, we're not just randomly discussing Oriental Adventures, but specifically the Wind Dukes? If you feel we need the disambiguation, why not "The Wind Dukes in the Age of Worms" for the previous section or "The Wind Dukes' History" for the first section? -Harmil 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did so because in many other D&D creature articles, the section headers are worded like "Subject in campaign setting" (see Drow). I guess I could've left off "the" at the beginning, though. I didn't do the same for Age of Worms because it isn't a campaign setting. I guess it's not really that big of a deal--I was just shooting for some uniformity in all the D&D articles.--Robbstrd 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons

Is there any chance I could get you to peek at Talk:List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons? I just made a comment there that I would like other input on, and while you and I have disageed on some style issues in the past, I greatly respect your knowledge of Greyhawk and D&D lore. -Harmil 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I Am Being Erased

Rob,

Someone has proposed the Erik Mona wikipedia entry for deletion. I think it would be lame for me to comment on the process, but since you have edited that page a fair amount, I thought you might want to check out the discussion at Erik Mona. I don't really care about the narcissistic angle, but "cleaning up" Misplaced Pages by deleting entries of D&D creators other than Gary Gygax seems to me to limit what we've been trying to accomplish here, and I thought you might have a viewpoint worth adding to the discussion over there.