Spells of Dungeons & Dragons

The below discussion is a deletion debate over several articles on individual D&D spells moved from VfD

Hmmm ... do we really want/need an article about each and every Dungeons and Dragons spell? Elf-friend 01:19, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• No. Delete--Samuel J. Howard 02:17, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• No we don't. Delete all of them. -- Netoholic 02:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. Displacer beast
  2. Magic missile
  3. Magic missle
  4. ... http://en.BambooWeb.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.57.255.173
  • >.< ... shakes head in despair. Elf-friend 02:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Think that's bad? Roam around some of the sub-cats of Category:Dungeons & Dragons, or the  :) -- Netoholic 03:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with deleting all, by the way. --Elf-friend 03:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh man...delete them all, we would, my precious! (conflation of D&D and JRRT just to anger people who would care!)--Samuel J. Howard 03:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. Non-encyclopedic minutia. SWAdair | Talk 03:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Finally, we can end this all this D&D psuedo-information. Delete all. Also, may I suggest adding Ray of Frost. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. The titles of the spells and monsters are such that redirects will inevitably trip over needed or existing articles (e.g. Fireball). The people doing the searching already know what they are, and we are not Gygax Central. Geogre 03:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all, including the non-article that Ray of Frost redirects to. -Sean Curtin 06:50, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. Qualified all - campaign settings and major characters are probably notable enough to keep, but individual creatures, spells, magic items and modules aren't. And this from a roleplayer. ;) -- Necrothesp 12:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this; delete all specific spells, unless they are also the names of attested mythological subjects like evil eye or tarasque. Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. But let's make this just the start of cleaning up minor fiction articles in general--there's anime, manga, Star Trek, Star Wars, JRR, computer game, etc. articles on par with these, which could be either deleted, or condensed into summary articles--EG Genealogy of Peregrin Took, instead of break-out articles for each Hobbit that just happens to get mentioned as a relative. Niteowlneils 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, but probably needs its own project page, perhaps BambooWeb:Inclusion of, erm..., and if it has its own wikiproject, it ought to get votes from users there, it might be best to systematically go through all the Pokemon articles for example. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all - people, if you want to write a game guide, Wikibooks is sitting there being an appropriate venue. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Bulls strength and Ray of Frost. Keep Displacer beast (2310 Google results). Keep Magic missile (143,000 results) as part of a larger article. On what basis do you consider an article "minor"? I don't have a problem with an article if it is written like an encyclopaedia article (see BambooWeb:Check your fiction). ··gracefool |☺ 05:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Even BambooWeb:Check your fiction says "Merge them! Make yourself a characters of X page, and go cut-and-paste crazy, leaving a solid characters article, and a trail of redirects in your wake." -- Netoholic (Talk)
• Delete or merge the less-known spells (preferably merge), but the archetypal ones á la Magic Missile or Fireball (both of which I will start tampering on as soon as I get out of bed) are very well known and certainly warrant their own articles. -- Kizor 22:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Okay, I've now merged Bulls strength, Magic missile and Cantrip to Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. ··gracefool |☺ 01:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Great. When can we start on monsters of Dungeons & Dragons (or creatures of Dungeons & Dragons)? -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • As soon as possible. (: +sj+ 07:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      1. That's a whole lot more work.
      2. Why? I can understand merging when there are a relatively small number of articles, most of which are stubs, but many Dungeons & Dragons creatures (not to mention characters of Dungeons & Dragons) have a decent amount of text. Why is a single huge page so much better than a number of separate pages, especially when those pages are likely to expand?
         • Please do merge all of the small pages. the longer pages usually have more than just "D&D" information.
           • Please wait until the new policy is decided - meanwhile are they really hurting anyone? ··gracefool |☺ 12:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      3. Redirects to headers/sections don't work.
         • they work for me... +sj+]
           • Huh? You can follow a link to a section, but a redirect page will always send you to the top of a page ··gracefool |☺ 12:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

··gracefool |☺ 03:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion