Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Dungeons & Dragons/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted by Cirt 07:13, 27 May 2009 [1].

Portal:Dungeons & Dragons

edit

I'm nominating this portal for Featured Portal status because... well... I think it meets the criteria. :) It's relatively new, but I've been putting some work into it and will be willing to do whatever I can to help make it Featured. There are a few things which I would like to mention before they come up here:

  • There is a small number of images. The vast majority of Dungeons & Dragons-related pictures are used under fair-use, and therefore aren't appropriate for use in a portal. I've included what images I can in the Selected Pictures section, but that's all that I really can do.
  • Not all of the "Selected articles" and "Selected rulebooks" are GA-Class or higher... there are a few B-Class articles. This is because I wanted to have a good number of selections, to make it feel random, but the project doesn't have enough GAs and FAs to have all of the selections be of such quality. As the project gains more GAs and FAs, I'll replace the B-Class articles from the selections with the new higher-quality articles.
  • The "News" section does need to be updated manually. Per the Featured Portal Criteria, this should only be a problem if it goes without updates for a long period of time. I hope to update it at least monthly, if not once a week. Some of the archives of the news have longer delays because it was created before the portal was and, therefore, wasn't considered to be as important to keep updated.

(also, for some reason the Featured Portal Candidates preload didn't come up properly when I created this page from the {{FPOC}} template; my apologies if there is any incorrect formatting, and feel free to correct it). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The nom page appears to be formatted properly. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks; just wanted to be sure. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

A good way to get comments going on this page is to leave a neutrally worded notice at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects informing them of the ongoing discussion. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but unfortunately the only really relevant WikiProject (the D&D project) consists of about me and two others, who are already aware of this discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try these:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games
Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games
Wikipedia:WikiProject Games

You could leave messages at the talk pages of all those. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Right... Thanks! I don't have time tonight, but I'll leave notes tomorrow. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus you could probably branch out into things besides games, such as sci-fi/fantasy projects, or even novels, video games, and anything else substantially touched by D&D. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query

Have the above WikiProject talk pages been notified, in addition to the others suggested by BOZ (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! This fell off my radar (too much to keep track of! :) ). I'll post something to them right after going through the rest of my watchlist. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted at the talk pages mentioned above and at the VG project's talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could there be a little "trophy case" (prime articles) section with FA/A/GA articles listed? Just an idea. Or maybe a little box with all of the top-importance articles (like Dungeons & Dragons itself, and Gary Gygax, TSR, etc.). Thoughts? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "main topics" box should contain most (if not all) of the Top-importance articles, and high-quality articles are typically being cycled through as the "selected article" and "selected rulebook", although if you'd like I could still add another box in (maybe under "main topics") for "best articles", or something like that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to use the actual TSR article as an example of quality content, as it needs a whole lot of work. I think we can add Dave Arneson as we have really rebuilt that one nicely (I expect it to pass GA when it gets reviewed). Greyhawk is in decent shape, and we may or may not be able to get that one to GA soon. The other top-importance articles which are not already GA or better do need some work. Neverwinter Nights 2 has had a lot of work put into it (thanks Mr. VanTine!), and should pass as a GA soon enough. I'd say, otherwise, we don't necessarily have any articles I'd like to tout just yet which aren't already on the portal. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I just revised the selections so that they are all GA or higher quality; I'd personally prefer to keep it that way (making sure that each article has had some outside review), so I think that adding Arneson and NWN (and, hopefully, SoZ) if/when the pass makes more sense than adding them now... they might go through a slightly unstable period during the reviews. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; also, keep in mind how many GA's we accumulated in the nearly six weeks since you proposed the portal here - we now actually have barely enough GAs that we can stock the portal full of them. :) BOZ (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - See for example Portal:Norway/Content, at Portal:Norway. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip; my feeling is that we don't have enough quality articles to make a page like that work yet, but once we have some more it would certainly be a good idea. Right now all of our high-quality pages (except for two which relate to the project only a tiny bit) are already in the "selected article/rulebook" cycles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images missing credits

Images at Portal:Dungeons & Dragons/Selected picture are missing proper credits. See Portal:Sustainable development/Selected picture for a good model of how to go about addressing this. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll add those later today or tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done; credit added for all selected pictures. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: D&D draws upon a rich fantasy tradition. Many of the things they draw on are in the public domain. So, images such as File:Dwarf.jpg, File:Louis Huard - Giant Skrymir and Thor.jpg, and so on could reasonably be added, so long as you add explanatory text about the D&D versions of the creatures depicted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have thought about that, but I kind of feel like many D&D creatures have relatively significant differences from their standard fantasy cousings... dwarves and elves look and act different, especially with 4th edition. I wouldn't really be opposed to adding such images to the portal, but I'm not sure if it would entirely make sense, either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With only seven pictures in rotation at Portal:Dungeons & Dragons/Selected picture, this is quite a small amount of pictures. Generally it's best practice for featured portal candidates to have at least 10, and preferably 20, free-use pictures in rotation. See for example, Portal:Oregon/Selected picture. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the note; in that case I will add some more images in later today, like the ones that Shoemaker's Holiday mentioned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think it'd be better to have a "More" link linking to the articles, rather than a "Nominate" link - it seems a little awkward to anyone used to other portals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should I just remove the "suggest" link then? Right now both of them should be going to the same page... I can't really anticipate anybody really nominating an article for this portal, and if they do they can use the talk page, which is why I didn't create a separate page. The "Suggest" links were just included in the pre-made portal template. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps instead just substitute with the portal templates used at Portal:Education ? Cirt (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... some of those ideas are good. I'll work on this tomorrow (sorry; got kind of sidetracked). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like a hand? As a long-time player and DM (albeit, mainly in homebrew worlds, not the official ones) I can probably help out a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All are welcome. :) BOZ (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this, but haven't had a lot of time - the WP:NOT stupidity is causing massive annoyance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Dungeons_%26_Dragons/archive1&oldid=1148685195"