Talk:Main Page

2011-08-22T20:50:39Z

173.245.50.26: /* Comment */

{{Archives
|label1=Discussions 1–30
|label2=Discussions 31–60
|label3=Discussions 61–90
}}

== Anti Wiki Criticism ==

This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.

Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)

== Two Millionth View! ==

Looks like today was [[Special:Statistics|the day]] folks! 2 million views on the main page!  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 12:46, 14 October 2009 (MDT)

:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010

And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!

== Size ==

how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}

:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)

::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)

:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== The Tavern ==

After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking... Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::But this '''is''' a wiki, and by not having the sidetrack of a chat users may tend to rely more on the already established discussion tool. Or they can leave messages on talk pages of other users. It actually encourages the opening of discussions and talks between users on the wiki - which can lead to more wiki additions and improvements, instead of just idle chatter.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)

== Search Incapacitation ==
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:Is it actually giving you an error, or just pulling up the extended/advanced search function ''(which is normal when you don't type an article name perfectly)''?.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

== Official Content Designation ==

Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} → [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Pictures Down? ==

While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)

::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

== Marking a page as homebrew ==

How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)

:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

== 3 Million View ==
Just a quick pat on the back, as per Statistics the main page has hit 3 million views. Too bad our news is months behind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:46, 3 January 2011 (MST)

:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)

== Advice on Creating Animal ==

Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse

:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)

== April 1 ==

Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)

== Sheild Bash? ==

Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}

: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)

== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==

Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.
DND 3.5 PLEASE!

::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)

== Campaign Setting Help ==
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)

== Have an Idea ==
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)

== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==

:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

== Site nominated for an Award ==

[[File:Oggie statue trans small.png|thumb]]

Just thought I would let you guys know: D&D Wiki has been nominated for an OGGIE. The OGGIEs are the industry awards thereby. Nowhere near as big as the ENnies or Origin awards, the OGGIEs reflect the games, people, and tools that our members appreciate. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:52, 14 August 2011 (MDT)

:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::I don't follow GD. This isn't a site, simply an award. One of the sites mentioned is that link is also up for it, but its not a link or anything. If you prefer to not accept the nomination, we can revert to one of the other nominees that had lesser votes. Not really sure what you mean by the above statement. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:08, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::What link? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 06:10, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Although that is wholly incorrect in regards to how licensing works when the original author publishes , its not what I'm asking. What link? Being nominated for an award has not resulted in a single link off site. So again, what link?
:::::::Anyways, in the interest of not rearguing an argument you've already lost that has no bearing, if you're uncomfortable let me know and well invalidate the nomination and let the next site in line receive it. (Didn't mean for that to sound rude, dang text based conversations. I just have no interest in revisiting the license discussion, especially when I see no connection) {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:55, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended.
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'd link to it, but......... Its "Website of the Year." Other contestants include a project funding platform site, a community game development & playtest site, an RPG advocacy site, etc. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:57, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::What content or license? The award is not a license, its simply an award. The winners will be given fair use to display the appropriate award. That's the only license at all related to this. GD, everyone is having a very hard time understanding you. We're not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're making no sense.The award is simply an acknowledgement of appreciation, it has no other effect. To say an acknowledgements somehow equals irrelevance is hard to follow. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 12:10, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Umm, what? I don't know if this is the worse, or best, conversation ever. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:06, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</cite>
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::{{Warning/Text}} It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. {{Warning/Text}} [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=531045&oldid=531027|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: personal attacks, rudeness, belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.

::::::::::::::To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which does allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

===Comment===

With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? ''':)''' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

D&D Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Main Page

Sniper range spree (3.5e Feat)

Range Spree (3.5e Feat)