Publication talk:Main

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Early Editions[edit]

Is there already a plan how to distinguish (and abbreviate) the original Dungeons & Dragons publications from AD&D, First Edition, which would be abbreviated "1e" when counting backwards from the established 4e, 3.5e,...? Daranios 16:01, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

So my suggestion would be "Oe" for "Original Edition". I personally would find it funny, that it looks almost like "0e", even so I would never say the original edition had null importance. Daranios 12:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't really think it's worth putting 2e and older books on the publication list, simply because I don't see much point to it. Cataloging all the books and such is more wikipedia work (and they probably have all the books already there--someone could just surf over to there if they wanted to get a reference for the books), while I think that the books put up here are more for OGL content (such as the Dread Codex that Surgo uploaded), or as a reference point for homebrew. Since we focus primarily on homebrew on the wiki, specifically 3.5 and 4e, I just don't think that having all those older edition books would contribute very much. --Ghostwheel 09:49, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Those books are usually not on Wikipedia, because they are not deemed noteworthy there, even though D&D in general is. Apart from that, by importing stuff from D&D Wiki and introducing the Publication and Canon namespace I hope that this wiki will no longer be focussed only on homebrew material, even so homebrew is by far and will very likely remain the larger part. My vision is to have a place for anything related to D&D in this wiki in the long run. Daranios 17:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
And accepting that expansion of vision came along with the merger. We're becoming a DnD homebrew / encyclopedia site (and referring people to other wikis for more in depth information), which suits me just fine.
I think for older editions, we can should add editions even if they aren't aren't in the edition title, but we don't have to be super concise about it. So "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" stuff would get a 1e appended to it to be "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1e", and stuff from older material might be "Dungeons and Dragons (Red Box)" or whatever. The latter might not even make sense, my knowledge of editions earlier AD&D1e is poor, but hopefully the idea is clear. I don't see a reason to avoid a couple of words in exchange for an ugly or confusing abbreviation that just muddles clarity. - TarkisFlux 19:56, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
To add, I'd really love a complete publication list. My hope is to eventually expand into AD&D. Surgo 00:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Now I have encountered my first before-AD&D publication Publication:Journey to The Rock, and knowing very little about this I am none the wiser. I have named the edition Dungeons & Dragons (Basic Rules) for the time being, but I am not comfortable with it yet. Maybe Wikipedia:Journey to the Rock, Wikipedia:Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set and Wikipedia:Editions of Dungeons & Dragons can help us. I am also still fond of the Oe-idea (see above). Now, how should we format Journey to The Rock as an example? Daranios 19:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was parallel development of both basic and advanced versions, and that sort of screws up any idea of a 0e other than chainmail. I think you have it right actually, and any products not done for the advanced line should be setup like that. - Tarkisflux 20:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How do these lists work?[edit]

I like the way this page/template works in automatically putting links to correctly structured publication articles here. But I do not understand how it works. Why is Complete Mage here, but Complete Champion isn't? What's wrong with the latter? Daranios 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, the list is just cached. It refreshes every week or so, or you can manually refresh the page by editing->saving it or selecting "Refresh" from the page options. Which I just did, so they're showing now :-) - Tarkisflux 20:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 :-) Ah, great! Being at it, do you happen to know what might be wrong with Publication:A Practical Guide to Monsters, as it distorts the first line of the table? Daranios 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It has two publishers, and that field is not designed to work with more than one. I've removed the links in it for now, since they aren't required for the field anyway, and will try to make that work with multiples later. - Tarkisflux 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorted that. Multiple publishers works nicely now. - Tarkisflux 21:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 :-) Daranios 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Appending ?action=purge to the URL would actually be better than going into the Edit section if you want it to show again. Note that I do not suggest doing that with spells or feats or monsters. --Havvy 05:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the same thing as selecting Refresh from the page options (which is hidden in a dropdown in the default skin). - Tarkisflux 06:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I still have a problem. The newest publication entry, Publication:From the Ashes already is in the list(s), but some others - Publication:Council of Wyrms, Publication:Fiendish Codex II, Publication:Eyes of the Lich Queen - are not. And I cannot see the difference. Does anyone see the problem? Daranios 10:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The semantic data for the pages wasn't updated; they didn't process when created or update when the template was changed for whatever reason. A null save or purge (refresh on the dropdown pagemenu) is all that should be needed on any pages like this. - Tarkisflux 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Great! :-) Daranios 16:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Most of the publications here are missing images. I'd add some myself, but I don't know the rules/laws for where we can get these images from. I would think we could get them from the WotC website under fair use clauses, but I want a confirmation of that. --Havvy 22:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


How should we treat novels? I think they basically belong here and are an important resource (mainly for the Canon section - they work fine in that regard e. g. at Forgotten Realms Wiki). Should we make an extra section for them, like for the Periodicals, not assign editions, but include them in the master list? Daranios (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Individual listings like the other books and their own subpage like the periodicals page is probably a good plan. I don't think assigning editions to them even makes sense, as they rarely cling that tightly to game mechanics anyway. I wouldn't mind including them in the master list, but the master list should probably get it's own page and not show here by default at this point. It's getting a bit large. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Great! I have made such a sub-page and I am starting to include novels with the help of Template:Publication Infobox. I leave it to somebody else to find the right place for the master list, though. Daranios (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)