The_Warlock
Explorer
Excellent work! It's good to see the old demon digitized...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Proud of myself. ;)
- Thread starter BOZ
- Start date
Big Mac
Explorer
Hey all.
Check out what I've been doing at Wikipedia, with Orcus, the beholder, and the mind flayer so far.It's a long overdue addition, I think.
The proper citations definatly make D&D research a little easier.
A detailed publication history section makes an article much more
encyclopedic and informative, and much more viable as an article. Articles consisting of only in-game information are useful in some ways, but providing a perspective like this is useful to basically anyone.
This is exactly what these articles need. If only the delitionists who were trying to get rid of all the D&D articles were tagging them for improvement (instead of trying to uncreate them) the wikipedians would probably have had time to make a big push on this a while ago.
I suppose this is a project that will take as long as the Creature Catalogue.
BOZ
Creature Cataloguer
I have added this section to sahuagin, Moradin, and Corellon.
OK cool! is it up yet, so's I can have a look at it?
yes; one thing I'm hoping is that by putting this pub. history up front in each article, people who are interested in improving the article will know exactly where to look to pull more info or add citations.
Naw, there are far fewer D&D articles on Wikipedia than there are old monsters to convert. We just need more people working on improving them. The thing is, a lot of people have given up working on the articles, because who wants to waste your time on something that has a good chance at being eliminated altogether?
The primary person who was nominating D&D articles slowed down considerably at the deletions, and in fact was focusing much more on adding tags for improvement to them. unfortunately, because he has done so many, you have a whole bunch of articles where you have to scroll down just to read at all, and no one's really making an effort to work on them because there are just so many. i don't foresee a big push to fix it, but you never know!
OK cool! is it up yet, so's I can have a look at it?
yes; one thing I'm hoping is that by putting this pub. history up front in each article, people who are interested in improving the article will know exactly where to look to pull more info or add citations.
Naw, there are far fewer D&D articles on Wikipedia than there are old monsters to convert.
We just need more people working on improving them. The thing is, a lot of people have given up working on the articles, because who wants to waste your time on something that has a good chance at being eliminated altogether?The primary person who was nominating D&D articles slowed down considerably at the deletions, and in fact was focusing much more on adding tags for improvement to them. unfortunately, because he has done so many, you have a whole bunch of articles where you have to scroll down just to read at all, and no one's really making an effort to work on them because there are just so many. i don't foresee a big push to fix it, but you never know!
Big Mac
Explorer
I think the main problem with Wikipedia is editors who don't understand the importance of citations. Once you get the message through everyone can do it. It takes a bit longer, but only needs to be done once. And adding the citations certainly helps other people check your work.
Naw, there are far fewer D&D articles on Wikipedia than there are old monsters to convert.
The primary person who was nominating D&D articles slowed down considerably at the deletions, and in fact was focusing much more on adding tags for improvement to them. unfortunately, because he has done so many, you have a whole bunch of articles where you have to scroll down just to read at all, and no one's really making an effort to work on them because there are just so many. i don't foresee a big push to fix it, but you never know!
How about getting the D&D wiki-project (or whatever it is called) to make a list and work through it from top to bottom?
Failing that you could always solicit help from the ENWorld forums. Maybe copy over a list of articles that need correcting and get a crew to pick articles and work through them together.
If you really get stuck you could bribe me with monster conversions.
I'll help fix a Wikipedia page and you help convert one of the 58 (actually I think it is 59 now) missing Spelljammer monsters! 
BOZ
Creature Cataloguer
Ah, OK, I was working mostly with a combination of Echohawk's excel spreadsheet, and what (scant) sources were in the articles already. I must have missed that one.
PS, lately I have been majorly involved with a major overhaul of the Gary Gygax article; compare where it is now to where it was before I started the "Good Article" review.
PS, lately I have been majorly involved with a major overhaul of the Gary Gygax article; compare where it is now to where it was before I started the "Good Article" review.
Similar Threads
