Talk:Leomund

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)

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

"Wizards of the Coast"?[edit]

Just cleaned up this article a bit. One sentence worries me:

Leomund is an archmage of the Wizards of the Coast.

"Wizards of the Coast" is a company, which bought TSR a few years back. But this sentence makes "Wizards of the Coast" sound like an organization within the Greyhawk world. Is this statement trying the say that Leomund was introduced by the WotC company? If so, the sentence needs restating. On the other hand, if the WotC being referred to is an organization within the Greyhawk world, then that needs to be explained.

— Nowhither 01:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clean up that association. It's the WotC company (was TSR, now a division of Hasbro), if it's still not clear in the article. — repayne 21:59, 1 September 2005 (EDT)