Talk:Dungeon magazine 75

Great idea, Fw190a8! It's a good way to show readers what sources have things they might be interested it, and what more needs to be written up out of one. I learned to index sources like that at my first wiki, Star Trek's Memory Beta, such as here. I tried it here early on, but didn't see it practiced on any other source page, and my early effort didn't look nice, so I gave up. I was thinking of attempting it again however.

I've expanded on your list of indexes, and to make it shorter I adopted an arrangement style from that wikia. Let me know what you think of the results. -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:02, October 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hell yes, that looks way better with the bullets and is more concise! I got the idea from Wookieepedia (see w:Starwars:A War on Two Fronts) where their implementation is slightly different. For this wiki, I reckon your implementation is better. As always, open to opinions from other editors, though! Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 13:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think here we might end up with a lot more information per source than an at Wookiepedia, especially out of sourcebooks. A compressed approach (the sideways list) would work well for us, I feel, and it puts everything right there in front of your eyes rather than scrolling down a list to look for it.
 * Another idea is to subdivide the lists. For example: characters who appear, followed characters who are only referenced or have very little information given about them. So a story where Elminster appears is distinguished from one that only namedrops him.
 * Another example is to divide Locations into, say, sites, buildings, settlements, and realms. -- BadCatMan (talk) 03:27, October 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I think it might well be worth splitting it into sections "Characters (featured)" and "Characters (mentioned)" and the same with everything else, like "Spells (featured)" and "Spells (mentioned)". It would be useful to the reader to know which spells were cast by a powerful wizard in an adventure, for example, but if we list those, the reader should not expect to find the descriptions of the spells in the source.


 * So, I think the sideways list combined with the featured/mentioned approach would work best. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 04:16, October 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I broke it up by appearance, referenced only, different types of places and so on. For spells, I decided not to print whole NPC spell-lists, but only mentioned those that had a particular importance in the storyline. Similarly, I listed special magic items, but not non-magical items and +1 longswords.
 * I used "New" for a new magical item statted in the adventure, and we could do the same for new spells. I'm not happy with the title though.
 * I figured the full-line across the page from the == header would be better to divide individual FR-set adventures or short stories from each other when they appear in the same work.
 * That extends the list down a bit, but gives a lot more organization to it. I think I'm generally rather satisfied with it. :) -- BadCatMan (talk) 06:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * This edit is awesome! I really like it. It means slightly more work writing these magazine articles, but hugely more benefit to the reader. Also, instead of "new", how about "First appearance", as with Wookieepedia? Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 15:43, October 8, 2012 (UTC)