Donmai

standardizing d&d mystara tags

Posted under Tags

gfz

BUR #27738 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Show

create alias dungeons_&_dragons:_tower_of_doom -> dungeons_&_dragons:_chronicles_of_mystara
create alias dungeons_&_dragons:_shadow_over_mystara -> dungeons_&_dragons:_chronicles_of_mystara
create alias lucia_(d&d) -> lucia_(chronicles_of_mystara)
create alias kayla_(d&d) -> kayla_(chronicles_of_mystara)
create alias shannon_(d&d) -> shannon_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename d'raven_(d&d) -> d'raven_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename hendel_(d&d) -> hendel_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename jarred_(d&d) -> jarred_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename miles_(d&d) -> miles_(chronicles_of_mystara)
create alias moriah -> moriah_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename gnome_shopkeeper_(d&d:som) -> gnome_shopkeeper_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename tel'arin_(d&d) -> tel'arin_(chronicles_of_mystara)
rename shadow_elf -> shadow_elf_(chronicles_of_mystara)

Tower of Doom and Shadow over Mystara are two arcade games which were re-released under the collective name "Chronicles of Mystara." The Tower of Doom tag has only one post (post #315277) which is also tagged with Shadow over Mystara because it's the same character, I think it's reasonable to merge these into one tag. Let me know if I missed anything. I settled on chronicles of mystara as a qualifier because "mystara" is the name of the default D&D campaign setting from a long time ago so it's really not specific to the games.

Reply
Diet Soda Red Terror Iroshi No Named American avidbookreader
xcv450

Isn't the Mystara to DnD implication kinda redundant? To my understanding the alias would move the existing implications to the new tag.
Also shouldn't the qualifier be simply (dungeons & dragons)? Unless DnD already has different characters with those names, I guess.

Reply
gfz

I have no idea if the existing implications will get moved, but might as well make it explicit. Is there BUR documentation that covers this stuff somewhere?
I don't like using _(dungeons_&_dragons) here because they're characters from an obscure cabinet game owned by Capcom, not part of the actual D&D IP owned by Wizards of the Coast. A similar example would be Tav (Baldur's Gate) or the other BG3 characters.
related: topic #27738

Reply
Iroshi

gfz said:

I have no idea if the existing implications will get moved, but might as well make it explicit. Is there BUR documentation that covers this stuff somewhere?
I don't like using _(dungeons_&_dragons) here because they're characters from an obscure cabinet game owned by Capcom, not part of the actual D&D IP owned by Wizards of the Coast. A similar example would be Tav (Baldur's Gate) or the other BG3 characters.
related: topic #27738

Those 2 arcade games are only "obscure" when compared to the D&D franchise at large, but they per se are not obscure, being big titles in the arcade beat-em-up genre. To put it in perspective, this arcade flyer described Tower of Doom as "The Ultimate Profit Weapon". Not to mention the pioneering use of QSound technology

Reply
gfz

That's exactly my point, they're obscure in comparison to the D&D franchise. It's not a jab at the popularity of the games, it's just that they're not relevant enough to Dungeons & Dragons IP for _(D&D) to be a good qualifier.

Reply
nonamethanks

gfz said:

I have no idea if the existing implications will get moved, but might as well make it explicit.

They do, and this BUR will fail as it stands because the implication technically already exists. I've fixed it.

Reply
1