User talk:Robbstrd

Welcome!

Hello Robbstrd, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. My goal is to make Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [1]).

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 Wikipedia 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" Wikipedia 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.

Gnolls

Thanks for cleaning up this article. I've wanted to reorganize that one for some time, but wasn't sure where to start.

Lupercio

Thanks for reverting my redirect to a disambiguation page, but I haven't overwrite any previous redirect as I've started the Lupercio article. Gcoliveira 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, this is Fastzander, the guy you mailed about the D&D creatures. Sorry I put this in your page, but like you, I am fairly new to editing wikipedia, and don't yet know how to send messages to people and such. I'm happy you'd like me to help you with the Greyhawk projct but... although this might sound strange, I don't actually play D&D! I'm just fascinated by mythical creatures, and hence have read D&D websites and know about most of the creatures in it. I found writing articles about the creatures wikipedia didn't yet have articles for a lot of fun, so I did it. Anyway, maybe if I do find something in the Greyhawk Project which I can help with. I will do it. Anyway, if you want to write back to me, do what you did before and send me a message in one of my articles. When you've read this, feel free to delete it from your page.

Comment

Hi again, this is Fastzander. I got your message about how to put things on user talk page... is this right? Anyways, thankyou for the tip on how to put society, physical description, and combat paragraphs in the creature descriptions. I'll do that from now on, provided that there is enough lore for the creatures for their description to be sensibly paragraphed like that.

Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)

Are we experiencing growing pains for all the gaming articles we've been adding, or is this just the inevitable backlash from people who don't want to see too many fiction (or at least RPG) articles on wikipedia? Anyway, someone wants to merge this article with Kobold. BOZ

Eli Tomorast and References

I notice that you duplicated (in a different style, and with slightly different credits) the References section at Eli Tomorast. You also left a comment indicating that this was required in order to alpha-sort the References section. While this is what WP:CITE says, it also points out that the reason for doing this is that, in very long articles, it can be hard to find a specific reference. I don't think that for tiny articles like this one, this really helps anyone, and worse in articles like Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, it can end up placing the least autoritative references first, which certainly doesn't help.

Just some thoughts. I hope this helps. -Harmil 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to have both notes & refs for two reasons: 1) more uniformity; & 2) the possibility that someone will come along and expand the article further, including adding more references that might not be cited in the article, but are relevant nonetheless (particularly for future expansion). As for placing the least authoritative references first, I believe this is countered by having the notes section before references, as well as by having links to those footnotes in the article's text. You'll note that many academic works will have both foot/endnotes & a bibliography, which is essentially what the references section on Wikipedia is. Honestly, it would probably be better if all reference sections were relabeled as "Bibliography", but then thousands of articles would have to be changed.--Robbstrd 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rob

Hey Rob, this is Bedford. Nice to know that someone I know in real life is here. I'm using a lot of your information about the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant in the article I wrote for it.--Bedford 15:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gracias, Bed!--Robbstrd 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Does This Not Surprise Me?

[2]]

re: Sitchin in "Hypothetical planet"

Hello, nice to meet you. Sorry I didn't see that ref saying Sitchin was a scientist. I was too incensed by the very inclusion of his ideas in the article that I didn't bother to read them closely. Anyway. I was wondering if you might give me some backup in my drive to get those "planets" removed. Sitchin already has his own article, and I feel that's where this information belongs, not in an article about astronomy. I hope you agree. Thanks for your help. Serendipodous 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Randy Richards article

Randy Richards may or not be a controversial figure. There are millions of people in the "game community" worldwide, and to say "most" people find him controversial is absurd. As to the Dreadmire issue, this is already referenced where it belongs, which is under the "Dreadmire" article.

The other source cited, the Coast Con link, is NOT a reliable source. The minutes I obtained during my research, from the meeting in question, sheds light on this subject. Randy Richards resigned when, he claims, he discovered illegal activities going on thin the group. Hardly a controversial act.

Not sure about the Yeomanry message group. Will have to research that one. This is the first I am hearing about this.--Cryogenesis 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

• If you have documentation to refute the DOCUMENTED claims already in your article, Randy, you need to provide your own documentation. You claims to the contrary are hearsay.--Robbstrd 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• I am not Randy Richards, Sally, and I do not appreciate the insinuation. Refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Cryogenesis 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe "Sally" qualifies as a personal attack.--Robbstrd 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Be that as it may, I have documentation to refute the claims. Who should I mail it to? I have a photocopy of the hand-written minutes TAKEN AT THE MEETING in question. In other words I have the actual source, not the vague summary the online link points to.--Cryogenesis 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put the documentation online. Better yet, add the allegations of illegal activity to your article, or to a CoastCon article!--Robbstrd 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two links that shed light on the issue. [3] You were being let go, you did not quit, even the record bears this, if you had a reason you should have put it on record before you stormed out. The second link shows you on the path. They gave you a chance. [4]. Your posts under the name Janus support all of their claims.Quode 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Spellbinder Games (USA)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Spellbinder Games (USA), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Spellbinder Games (USA). If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Robbstrd 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dreadmire

I have had the Dreadmire page speedy deleted since it was a recreation of deleted content. It's ok for anyone, even a puppett to ask for deletion review. However, it's clear that his case does not stand a chance. Pascal.Tesson 01:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is now under attack for dropping Dreadmire. He and his sockpuppets are all over the place. The one thing Randy knows is the limits for this level of disobedeance are much higher on the web than in real life.Quode 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's drop the subject of Randy Richards

Hi. As you probably have noticed I have also been quite ticked by the behaviour of Cryogenesis and his likely puppets over the last few days. We have all lost our cool about it and this is not productive. I intend to stop contributing to the various debates as I am confident that the rest of the community will handle it perfectly well. I'm writing to ask you do the same, especially because I'm concerned that you are making this too much of a personnal affair especially since it's pretty clear that you know Mr. Richards in real life. As I told Quode (talk · contribs), I think it would be wise for you to go back to editing other D&D articles that you seem to care about and leave this mess solve itself. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Aspis (Dungeons & Dragons)

Any suggestions for saving this one? Is it worth saving at all?  :)

For that matter, the same fellow also put Thoul, Nilbog, and Draeden on the chopping block. BOZ

Re: Osyluth

Woops seems I forgot to add "url=" ar the start of the tag. Well done Mc Gyver... My bad... The URL I wanted to put is http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rsa/archive which contains:

Bone devils, also called osyluths, often serve as the police and informers of the Nine Hells, monitoring other devils' activities and reporting on their service.

Bone devils stand about 9 feet tall and weigh about 500 pounds.

Combat

Bone devils hate all other creatures and attack ruthlessly. They freely use wall of ice to keep the enemy divided.

But to be honest I didn't see that you changed the page while I was looking for the URL when I first put the tag. What was a blatant copyvio is now more borderline. I saw your changes later when I left a notice on the first user's page. So since I don't really get the exact policy in that case (rephrasal of a copyrighted material), I left the notice so an admin could check it. If you want to remove it go ahead :) That'll learn me to do things when I am tired... -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Noob question

You recently sent me a message about summarizing my edits, and, I hate to admit it, but I don't know what that means or how you do it. Plz tell me. I'm a noob. Fastzander 07:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Consort Articles

Thanks for acknowledging my work on the consorts. I just added some more info on them and the references you asked for. As i see you are a Greyhawk specialist so if anything seems incorrect to you in these articles please let me know i'm quite new at this...! Mansemat 13:47 , 12 December 2006 (GMT+1)

Thanks again for helping me check my spelling on the consort articles. English is not my mother language so sometimes i tend to falter and not to express myself properly. Anyway hope you like my work. Mansemat 01:00, 16 December 2006 (GMT+1)

Hi. I've been doing some additional work lately on the arch-devils of Baator and i added Fierna, Levistus and Bel so i thought you'd like to check it out. I really appreciated your corrective work on the consort articles so if you have so me time to tell me what you think.... Anyway happy 2007 to you. Later. Mansemat 07:06 PM, January, 5th 2007

JarlaxleArtemis

Why are you reverting the edits of user:Left4Vanish? It appears to be the editor formerly known as user:JarlaxleArtemis" trying to remove some personally identifying material. Is there anything wrong with that? -Will Beback · † · 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the user pages of banned wikipedians were to be left as is. He's already edited under the usernames "RightToVanish" & "Right2Vanish" & it appears he still hasn't learned to play nice with others:[5] & User talk:RightToVanish.--Robbstrd 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and banned users shouldn't edit any part of Wikipedia. But I think this is a logical exception. I don't see how we gain anything by insisting that this information remain. -Will Beback · † · 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone just registered on ENworld [6] and is not far from Wikipedia at all...

Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons)

Thanks for your efforts to save this article. I don't know if anything we've said will help or not, but I think these deletionists may set a bad precedent if they succeed. I think some of them are looking with greedy eyes at their next targets if they can make this one go bye-bye. BOZ 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, belated congrats to you and all who helped - hopefully that will keep the deletionists at bay for a little while at least! BOZ 03:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) articles

Hey Rob, just noticed your Rabble of Devilkin article, and edits in other D&D devil articles. Great stuff! The timing is fortuitous, as I've been posting a lot of research that I've done into the topic on ENWorld - I put a link on the Lords of the Nine Hells talk page, but not sure if anyone noticed it. I've got a couple of threads going on where I've posted various notes. If you can find anything in there that you'd like to use for these articles, I've got sources and even page numbers for most of it, so it's easily verifiable. BOZ 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Boz!--Robbstrd 04:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Rob,

Since we're converting the Dukes of Hell over on ENWorld, I figured I'd add a page to wikipedia for each one we finish. We just finished Amduscias today, and started on his buddy Malphas. BOZ 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

D&D template

I added importance and stuff to the D&D Project template for talk pages. I also renamed it to match other projects and save some typing. Here's what it looks like:

- Peregrine Fisher 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

D&D IM

Do you IM? I'm at peregrinefisher@hotmail.com. I say this because you, User:BOZ and I seem to be the main D&D editors. It might be good to coordinate. - 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth...

RE: Sasserine...

I couldn't tell in the maps I was using for sources whether it was an "r" or a "k". Thanks for the correct. :) Pat Payne 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

renaming pages

you asked what's the point. Okay here's the answer, conformity. So everything looks alike, so every page on Wikipedia follows a similar formatting, for continuity. It is common practice for books to be listed as (novel), (reference) and the like I'm sure you've also seen in the references such as (album) and (movie) but let's talk D&D. New articles are popping up all the time this is good. The downside is on some occasions we see multiple pages for the same thing. So far I have found six different lists of D&D adventures/modules. All of which I will merge into one list and kill the others this of course will make many people unhappy but in the long run will be better for everyone. Why will this be better? Because it is streamlined, concise, and definitive. We also have a multiple articles about all the books and boxes themselves. All of these need to be defined as to what they are and a consistent scheme needs to be used. I have run across separate page entries for a single adventure a good example is Howl from the North and The Howl from the North or Howl From the North (module). I'm sure you'd agree these are pretty sloppy. Another example is just so we know that we are Talking about the same thing. Look at the example of Space Hulk if we use this title for every thing pertaining to space Hulk it becomes very confusing for the searcher. So how bout we define things, such as, Space Hulk (videogame) Space Hulk (novel), Space Hulk (Board game). It all comes down to there is D&D project formatting as opposed to Wikipedia format. D&D formatting is preferred by the 20 of you that are on the D&D project but Wikipedia formatting is preferred by 5 million Wikipedia users. Sorry you guys have been outvoted. (See the referencing argument). Wikipedia uses national standards such as the Harvard citing formats and the library tagging formats. the thing is Rob we are both diehard D&D gamers and Wikipedia enthusiasts. How about we work together instead of fighting. David AKA Dm2ortiz 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

D&D wiki project

i have been forgeting the names. good catch. thaks for the help [[Category:Dungeons & Dragons modules|Tree of Life, The]]