Talk:Hexblade

This redirect is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

Requested move[edit]

Hexblade → Hexblade (Dungeons & Dragons) – To conform with the nomenclature of the other articles in this Catagory mordicai. 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Weak oppose -- I don't see standardized parentheticals as a useful tool on articles that don't need to be disambiguated. But I don't see any harm from them either. -- JHunterJ 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Unless a naming convention can be pointed out for this, the only one that I know applies is WP:DAB which says not to use parenthenticals unless disambiguating. I'd also recommend renaming the other existing articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would normally agree to leave the parentheticals off but in this case it seems to just make so much more sense to remain uniform. If nothing else, it makes writing articles MUCH easier because you know that all of the topics have a similar naming convention. Otherwise you have to remember that Fighter is referenced differently then Duskblade. --Laxrulz777 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to remember anything -- Duskblade (Dungeons & Dragons) will redirect to the basename, if you choose to use it. To avoid hitting redirections, yes, you will have to know article titles, but that's true across Wikipedia -- you can just call former vice president John Adams John Adams, but you have to use George Clinton (vice president) to get the one you mean. -- JHunterJ 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If they don't need disambiguating, I don't think they should have it. Morgrim 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

To the (very helpful) opposing vote JHunter...If it wasn't the standard for all the classes, I'd probably agree with you. Since, however, things like the Duskblade & Dread Necromancer have been given the parenthetical, I think a uniform treatment will, ultimately, decrease confusion. As this article is one of only two (see Warmage for the other) of the classes from non-core books that doesn't have the tack-on, I think the much more elegant solution is to add it to to these rather than making less disambiguated articles have to enter a debate as to whether they deserve the added (Dungeons & Dragons). Easier all around. mordicai. 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think having an article "Title" redirect to "Title (identifier)" (like Duskblade does) is the wrong way round, though. The parenthetical identifiers are part of the disambiguation strategy, not part of the standardized naming strategy, IMO. But neither approach interferes with building an encyclopedia... -- JHunterJ 10:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your point at all. If we could have had this conversation before the articles were made & set a better naming policy, I'd agree even more. My two points would be that the die has been cast, in the form of the other articles conforming already, & as well that, if we postulate some future evolution of Wikipedia, in some far-flung era, where info-glut has put another "Hexblade" or "Warmage" on the map, having these disambiguated would be a boon. I mean, if tommorow Joe Fantasytauthor writes some best-seller about a bad luck causing duelist called a hexblade, we'll already have things sorted out on this end. mordicai. 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request failed. --Dijxtra 10:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick count shows that only 10 (Beguiler, Divine Mind, Dragon Shaman, Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, Favored Soul, Hexblade, Soulknife, Spellthief, & Truenamer) don't require some form of disambiguation anyways... Doesn't it make more sense to just disamb them all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laxrulz777 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You can't disamb ones that don't require disambiguation (btw, Dragon Shaman does require it, but Psychic Warrior, Soulborn, Spirit Shaman, Swordsage, Totemist, and Wu Jen also don't), you can only label them, and in this case the label is superfluous. -- JHunterJ 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JHunterJ here, if the tag isn't needed then I don't think it should be added. By the same token, if a disambiguasion is required then we should be consistant. I moved the Assassin article from Assassin (character class) to Assassin (Dungeons & Dragons) for this reason. And also so that page could be used for assassin character classes from other games, without them being tacked on to an otherwise purely DnD article. Morgrim 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move and move back[edit]

This article was temporarily moved to Hexblade (Dungeons & Dragons) due to an editor posting a request for such. I performed the move without knowing that it was against consensus here, so I have moved it back after being informed. Sorry for the confusion, and please be mindful that the same could occur at any D&D article until you have a centralized discussion about naming conventions. Is there a WikiProject that handles D&D articles? --Aguerriero (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]