https://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=GamerAim&feedformat=atomD&D Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T16:04:38ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.8https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geodude671&diff=1255047User talk:Geodude6712019-12-30T16:21:40Z<p>GamerAim: /* Silly Me */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User:Geodude671/Top Template}}<br />
__TOC__<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Artifact ==<br />
<br />
:I have created an Artifact, but the words are not showing up. Can you look into it? Thanks!!<br />
<br />
— [[User:Me0wFish|Me0wFish]] ([[User talk:Me0wFish|talk]]) 15:35, 23 August 2019 (MDT) Me0wFish<br />
<br />
:I don't see anything wrong with how the page is being displayed. Can you be more specific? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 01:05, 24 August 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page had comment tags around all the content; I removed them so that now the page displays normally. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 03:45, 24 August 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks!!<br />
<br />
— [[User:Me0wFish|Me0wFish]] ([[User talk:Me0wFish|talk]]) 12:37, 24 August 2019 (MDT) Me0wFish<br />
<br />
== Permission? ==<br />
<br />
Heya, IDK if you care about this stuff but just in case, is it okay if I use your user page's setup for my user page? Here is what it'll look [[User:Cosmos/Test|like]]. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 08:55, 29 August 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Fine with me. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:31, 29 August 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Thanks! --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 11:04, 30 August 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Site ==<br />
<br />
I know, I simply stated the other site so that neither side can cite me for plagiarizing my own work. It was a matter of covering my own rear in regards to the content I created and had put on both here and the other place.<br />
I edited a newer message with no mention, but simply stated it's the same username so that Moderators would know it is me with my own work.<br />
<br />
== Taranil The God ==<br />
<br />
:I created a new God, Taranil, but it does not show anything I wrote. Can you please look into it, thanks.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Me0wFish|Me0wFish]] ([[User talk:Me0wFish|talk]]) 21:15, 30 August 2019 (MDT) Me0wFish<br />
<br />
:The task is done Meowfish, just remember to get rid of <-- and --> when creating a new deity, race, ect. as stuff between the lines doesn't show on the page itself once you saved your edit.--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 21:21, 30 August 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, thank you!<br />
<br />
— [[User:Me0wFish|Me0wFish]] ([[User talk:Me0wFish|talk]]) 08:57, 31 August 2019 (MDT) Me0wFish<br />
<br />
== You scared the ever living ==<br />
<br />
SHIT out of me dude lmao, but ya thanks for fixing that for me (in reference to my wip surged) on a side note seeing "this page has been deleted" scared the fuck out of me until i realized what was up -CmC<br />
<br />
== Cant make an account ==<br />
<br />
Every time i try to create an account i get the same message. Theres a problem with my login session. I do not understand whats going on with that and its really frustrating me. I do the captcha and the puzzle so i cant figure out what the problem might be. Please help if possible.<br />
<br />
-PrimalCreator<br />
<br />
:You are getting this message consistently? Very strange. I'll forward this to Blue Dragon.<br />
:In the meantime, if you let me know your desired username and an email with which to privately contact you, I could create the account for you and email you a temporary password (with the expectation that you'd change the password after logging in). Would you like me to do this? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:17, 3 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Absolutely, the desired username is PrimalCreator and the email is cord118@gmail.com<br />
<br />
:::The account is created. You should have gotten an email with a temporary random password. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:55, 3 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
Thank you and i did, ill log in right now.<br />
<br />
== Moving A Page Back ==<br />
<br />
Hey Geodude, sorry to ask, but could you move the [[Martial Adept (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)]] page back to [[3.5e Martial Adept Alternate Class Features|Martial Adept]]? I only realized after I moved it that the original naming scheme was correct as noted by all the page names found after this [[3.5e_Alternate_Class_Features#WoTC_Publications|point]] on the 3.5e Alternate Class Features page. --[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 20:07, 8 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletion of comments by a troll ==<br />
<br />
Good day Geodude,<br><br />
Having a hard time finding a deletion policy about removing comments from a internet Troll. Someone I know in the physical word has taken it upon themselves to clog up one of my pages with trolly behaviour using a burner account, and no real intent to contribute to the content. What is the policy on removing comments like that?--[[User:Aethim|Aethim]] ([[User talk:Aethim|talk]]) 09:05, 13 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Are you talking about [[Pit Fighter (5e Class)]]? If so, I’d hesitate to call that user a “troll” as they bring up legitimate issues with that class as far as I can tell. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 13 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The first statement by the troll should say it all. But if you look at the screen name, timestamp of when the user was made and compare it to when the page was created, and that the account has not contributed to anything else you can see that it is meant for harassment. Not actually to give constructive input. I have also confirmed who the troll is in physical world, and their intent. Anyway I have requested a speedy delete, I would be more comfortable contributing to a resource site that has better tools to deal with harassment.--[[User:Aethim|Aethim]] ([[User talk:Aethim|talk]]) 12:26, 13 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The first comment is a bit uncalled for (particularly the last bit). Users who focus and talk only on one page/discussion are not totally unfamiliar on the wiki since many people may come and may fixate on one particular thing they like. The fact that this person continued the conversation seemingly in some earnest as far as I see on the talk page doesn't quite scream "troll," though maybe a bit ham-handed in trying to address what they felt were legitimate problems about the class. I have no idea what information you may have gotten on the individual in real life though. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:59, 13 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Hopefully Geodude doesn't mind, we have tools to deal with harassment, but it is hard to handle a situation when we aren't fully aware of what is happening. Earlier Geodude had to assume the article being "trolled" by your accounts. Can you also refrain from calling another user a troll? Remarks like this are not helpful. Could you explain what your issue is, and with whom, and what page? Admins could more properly help you if we understand things more. Please be patient as we all have lives too, and want to help as soon as we can. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 13:05, 13 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::My apologies if my last comment sounded like a slight at D&D Wiki, it wasn't. The situation is just getting frustrating. The person has since taken to other means to harass me, but on those platforms I can just block them and its all done. Eventually they will get bored and leave. I am just requesting the page be deleted since the wiki has no way of blocking users. And yes the page in question is Pit Fighter (5e Class) {{unsigned|Aethim}}<br />
<br />
::::::I don't see that user's comments as "harassment," but maybe there's context from another site that we're missing. It seems like the other user has acted mostly civilly throughout your interactions, as Yanied said above, so at present no action will be taken. If things deteriorate, then we will look at discipline, but right now there's not much we can do. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:09, 13 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I have responded on the talk page, and I hope that this should keep the discussion on topic and not be persomal for you anymore. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:20, 14 September 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wiki Cookie ==<br />
<br />
{{WikiCookie|I can not count the number of times where you have been very helpful to both me and other users by fixing page issues, deleting spam, and doing other thankless maintenance jobs yourself and with your bot. As such, I would like to properly thank you for always being such a solid support rock by giving you a cookie. [[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 20:28, 10 October 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
== Tables ==<br />
<br />
Hey, so I'm creating a Demon Lord and wanted to create a madness table for them like the other Demon Lords. How do I create a Table?-[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 08:00, 21 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Geodude probably will be able to help you out better with this but here's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table page] that you could try and start on to figure out what you need to do to make your table. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:13, 22 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks.-[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 07:00, 23 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry I didn't reply to this; I usually either refer to [[Help:Table]] or copy-paste a table from another page and edit that to fit my needs. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:55, 25 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Thanks. I'm trying to copy and paste a table onto the page, but I'm struggling to make it work.-[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 07:00, 1 November 2019 (MDT)<br />
::The creature I'm referring to is [[Scylla (5e Creature)|Scylla]]. I'm not sure what's wrong, but maybe you could take a look.-[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 10:28, 2 November 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Part of your issue was that you were using pipes ( | ) inside a template. Since templates use that character to define parameters, the page thought you were defining the "class" parameter as part of the 5e creature template. If you need to use a pipe character inside a template, you can use {{tl|!}} instead.<br />
:::I've managed to get the table to appear, but I'm not sure why the template isn't alternating between a green highlight and no highlight, instead having no highlight on anything. I'll see if anyone in the Discord is able to help with that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:10, 2 November 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Thanks Geodude :)-[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 17:42, 2 November 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== [[5e Player-Character Preload|5e Player-Character Preload]] ==<br />
<br />
Hi, long time no see! Haven't really been active on Discord cause of parents, and just started getting back onto D&D Wiki (mainly for organizing details on my campaign though). Speaking of that, I wanted to ask about the 5e Player-Character Preload, in the italics near the top, below the character's name, it says 1st-level, but if a number greater than 3 is inputted into the |level= line of the page, it does not display the level (only "-level" instead of "20th-level" or something like that). Are you able to fix this, or find someone to fix this? I would originally go to the person who first made this, but that's Guy and he left, didn't he? So yeah. Thanks! --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:42, 24 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There's a spot for CR. Change 1 to whatever level you want the thing to be and it'll change the level. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:20, 24 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already done that, and if it's a number above 3, it doesn't show. [[User:Cosmos/Courageous|Here's]] an example. It says ''Medium humanoid (dwarf, mountain), chaotic neutral, -level barbarian'' instead of ''Medium humanoid (dwarf, mountain), chaotic neutral,'' '''''20th-level''''' ''barbarian''. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:00, 25 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've sorted this. You may need to click "refresh" at the top of the page to see the changes on your character. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:53, 25 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks! --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Wow, that was an interesting edit. Where'd you pick up or learn that editing knowledge? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 21:05, 28 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The previous time I edited the creature template, I asked about that principle in the Fire Emblem wiki's Discord, and I applied the same principle here. It was helpful so that we no longer have to deal with annoying things like [[:Category:Monstrositie Type]] or "swarm of Medium undeads." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 22:48, 28 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::How do you access the template anyways? I couldn't figure out how to so I could try and see what the problem was. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Here it is Cosmos [[Template:5e Creature]] but it is protected.<br />
::::::::I'm still not sure what you did with the template. I see the edit, but just don't get it :p {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:54, 30 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I replaced the previous #ifeq function in the template with a #switch function. <code><nowiki>{{#switch: {{{cr}}}|1=1st|2=2nd|3=3rd|{{{cr}}}th}}</nowiki></code> This means: If field "cr" equals 1, output "1st". If cr is 2, output "2nd". If cr is 3, output "3rd". If cr is anything else, output the value for cr and add "th" to the end (eg, if cr is 4, output "4th"). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 30 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::And whats does the ifreq function do? (sorry, I could Googling the answer too I suppose) {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 06:59, 31 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Thanks, BSFM. And wow, that's a dense page. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 11:14, 31 October 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Some input ==<br />
Hi, I'm rather new here, but I started making a few things a couple of days ago. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it, giving me a few tips as to what to change, what to add, and what to remove. I've applied for Discord verification, but that hasn't happened yet, so I'm contacting you here instead. Thanks in advance! [[User:Solomon|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon|talk]]) 18:31, 4 November 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Bot Building ==<br />
<br />
Can you teach me how to make a bot to help out on this site? [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 20:42, 21 November 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:I just use MediaWiki's [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot PyWikiBot]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 22 November 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Lich Armor ==<br />
<br />
Hello I don't think it's overpowered it's one AC more the mage armor witch is a 1st level spell and the only difference is it ueses Intelligence you putting it to a 5th or 6th level spell makes no since id at least put it to 2md or 3rd level {{unsigned|Lord Loss}}<br />
:Even a difference of 1 AC makes a huge difference in 5e; please read [[Understanding Bounded Accuracy (5e Guideline)]]. Not only is the base AC 1 higher, but it also uses the wizard's primary stat, {{5a|int}}, instead of using {{5a|dex}} like ''{{5e|Mage Armor}}'' which for the wizard is likely to be a secondary or tertiary stat. Having said that, I think 3rd level is a reasonable level to put the spell, so I've done that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:55, 19 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Silly Me ==<br />
<br />
Silly me. I saw Hello Neighbor was free on the Epic Games Store and thought of you. I went to your Discord server, to find I was banned. Sent you a friend request, you've blocked me. I log in here, I have a "second warning." I suppose that's all my reward for keeping an old friend in mind. Whatever. Do what you guys want to do. I'm just here to drop off a link.<br />
<br />
Merry Christmas: [https://www.epicgames.com/store/fr/product/hello-neighbor/home Yeah, it's in French. You can fix it yourself if you still don't have the game.]<br />
<br />
--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:21, 30 December 2019 (MST)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geodude671&diff=1182865User talk:Geodude6712019-06-09T23:10:42Z<p>GamerAim: /* Warning */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User:Geodude671/Top Template}}<br />
__TOC__<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Admin Discussions ==<br />
I am sorry to have caused Guy any unnecessary hardship. I am happy to await a consensus or even an alternative solution to my current issue. Although I no longer post to D&D Wiki my players and co-workers still find it an invaluable resource. -- [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:50, 1 October 2018 (PST)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't worry too much about it.<br />
:If you want the setting you created locked, as you mentioned elsewhere, we could definitely do that for you. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 22:11, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== College of Bows ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for deleting that again. I saw that the deletion summary wasn't accurate and its deletion was justified, but I got distracted by my RfA and forgot about it! So again, thanks for picking up my slack :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:50, 5 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curious ==<br />
<br />
Why was it okay to remove the wording template here [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Igor_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1099646&oldid=1099634]] with only 2 people discussing? From a perspective, 1 person had an issue and 2 people thought it wasn't a problem. You could say 3 with your removal of the template. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 09:16, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I removed the template because the issue it brought up wasn't actually an issue. Even discounting that the race name is capitalized in the source material, "Igor" is a proper noun, so according to both our style guide and the rules of English grammar, that race's name should be capitalized. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:23, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::sure. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:08, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Request ==<br />
<br />
Hi Geodude, could you please do me a solid and temporarily restore the deleted page [[Servant of the Gods (5e Class)]] for me? [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 14:36, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Done. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:03, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Thank you very much! I just saved the class as a userpage. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 15:27, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Request ==<br />
<br />
Hi Geodude could you please temporarily restore the deleted page [[Dark Knight (5e Class)]] i had been using it in a campaign and its feats are too unique to find a good substitute that and my dm had integrated one of the dark paths into the story if you could do this it would be highly appreciated. [[User:DoomDragon|DoomDragon]] ([[User talk:DoomDragon|talk]]) 17:29, 31 October 2018 (MT)<br />
:Link an email to your account and I'll email it to you. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 21:10, 31 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Thanks a bunch! i just put up the link to my email on my page. [[User:DoomDragon|DoomDragon]] ([[User talk:DoomDragon|talk]]) 00:16, 1 November 2018 (MT)<br />
<br />
:::I had just recently found out that my previous email was not receiving anything from the wiki. I have now updated it and tested it works now i apologize for that [[User:DoomDragon|DoomDragon]] ([[User talk:DoomDragon|talk]]) 22:21, 3 November 2018 (MT)<br />
<br />
==dungeons, dungeons & more dungeons==<br />
<br />
I have an idea for a 5e artifact called the Infinite-Sided Die and I'm not sure how to post it. It is capable of granting wishes at will. It requires the user to be proficient in Arcana and the use of a dice set. The DC is 20. You get a roll bonus of 1/3 of any spellcasting levels that you have(1/2 bonus if it has ANYTHING to do with wild magic or divination). Failure might mean your sex and/or race could get changed, an angry demon/devil/angel is summoned, a zombie plague occurs, a planar gate is opened, your face gets erased, you get plane shifted, or anything else your DM desires! --[[Special:Contributions/24.100.125.41|24.100.125.41]] 17:47, 14 November 2018 (MST)<br />
:This sounds a lot like the Deck of Many Things. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 17:50, 14 November 2018 (MST)<br />
::This sounds exactly like the deck of many things... I have a more ridiculous version of the deck in my own campaign for reasons... {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 01:18, 15 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Magic item==<br />
<br />
Has anyone thought of Earrings of Lactation(any edition)?--[[Special:Contributions/24.100.125.41|24.100.125.41]] 18:08, 21 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Userpage ==<br />
<br />
beautiful selfie you got there on the page Geo. :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 07:04, 10 December 2018 (MST)<br />
: The image changes every time you refresh the page so I legit don’t know which picture you’re talking about. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 08:09, 10 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::"If I see anyone break rules..." ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:30, 10 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== The Paladin Fighter Subclass ==<br />
<br />
I'm ducking out of this discussion. I know I can be sassy at times, but I can't deal with the aggression that's been poured into this page. I'm sorry. I just can't. Please step in, I'm spent. --[[User:TheStoryEnthusiast|TheStoryEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:TheStoryEnthusiast|talk]]) 02:38, 11 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== [[Absolute Darkness (5e Spell)| Absolute Darkness (5e Spell)]] ==<br />
<br />
Hi there, my name is Cosmos, and I was looking through spells and noticed the spell, [[Absolute Darkness (5e Spell)| Absolute Darkness (5e Spell)]], which I decided to try and help out with saving it from an untimely demise. And now I want to talk to the creator but I can't figure out who the creator is... I saw that you and someone else had made comments on it. Can you help me? I've made some major changes, and I wan't to confirm with the creator, since it seems like the spell hasn't been touched in a while. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 00:50, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:The creator of the page was a user named [[User:Grauals|Grauals]]. Since he linked an email address with his account, you can try and contact him using [[Special:EmailUser/Grauals]] if you want, but you probably shouldn't expect a reply since he hasn't been on this wiki for years. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 07:11, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::Oh okay thanks. But I think it should be alright now, Green Dragon has removed the "abandoned" tag for the spell so hooray XD. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 09:51, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Yardrat ==<br />
<br />
Go look at the thing I proposed about it since you want it to be like it from the manga and the anime and the video games having it a lvl 10 or higher. Or make it like an reaction and teleport behind them and attack the enemy. {{unsigned|PDAWG8989}}<br />
<br />
:See my reply on your talk. I don't understand your comment here; the version of the page that I reverted to was decidedly NOT like from the comic/cartoon, and having the trait be a reaction wouldn't make sense within the context of 5e's rules. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 18:47, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Request ==<br />
<br />
Did you get my request on Discord?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:53, 22 January 2019 (MST)<br />
:No, I didn’t. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:22, 22 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Wand of Warning ==<br />
<br />
Is there a wand that acts as an early warning system? --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:41, 6 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:The Rod of Alertness or a Weapon of Warning would do the trick in the DMG. Alternatively, casting {{5e|Alarm}} spell can achieve the same effect depending on circumstances. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 16:46, 6 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Harry Potter ==<br />
<br />
Has anyone tried to put a Marauder's Map style item on the site?--Redrum 14:05, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Doesn't look like there is an item named the Marauder's Map. Aslo, I'm not sure if you are aware, but you can put a signature at the end of your comments using two dashes and four ~ instead of manually putting in that stuff (the signature also provides links to your user page or talk if anyone needs to get in touch with you). --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:55, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== [[Shipwright (5e Background)|Shipwright (5e Background)]] ==<br />
<br />
So this background I reviewed earlier today, and somebody other than the creator keeps adding a feature completely unrelated to the background, I have already undone it once and said my reason for it. Should I keep undoing it or leave it alone? Cause the person hasn't given any reason.--[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:16, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:I protected the page from anonymous IP edits. Problem solved. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 14:20, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::Oh, well that was quick. Thanks. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Personal Classes and Balancing ==<br />
Hey so we've technically met before involving a class with a red and blue dragon and possible boiling oceans and i was wondering if you'd be willing to look at a few classes i've made(their not uploaded) and help me balance them out [[User:Betterthanallofyou|Betterthanallofyou]] ([[User talk:Betterthanallofyou|talk]]) 16:51, 26 February 2019 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Deleting Content ==<br />
<br />
While I understand relinquishing the Archivist to this site, is there any way that I can at least have the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Mascot_(5e_Class) The Mascot], [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Underdog_(5e_Class) The Underdog], and [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Eidolon_(5e_Race) Eidolon] pages removed? I understand that people have probably taken it and copied it down for their own use, but I would still appreciate my petition being taken into account. With little to no discussion---let alone edits by other users---on those pages, I don't see why there's any reason to deny my request. Thank you for hearing me out, and I'm sure we'll come to some understanding. --[[User:TheStoryEnthusiast|TheStoryEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:TheStoryEnthusiast|talk]]) 15:48, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
:I don't see any issue with deleting those pages for that reason. If I may ask, why do you want the content you created deleted from the site? Is it some misunderstanding of the licensing? Do you just not feel as proud of those pages as you used to? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:59, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Architecture==<br />
<br />
I know places and buildings can be magical (or be enchanted), but can buildings be treated as sentient magical items?--Redrum 13:59, 2 March 2019 (MST)<br />
:It's magic. Go nuts. Do whatever makes sense for your setting; it doesn't matter if it makes sense only for your setting. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:53, 2 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
I have already done that<br />
<br />
[[User:BeastMurder16|BeastMurder16]] ([[User talk:BeastMurder16|talk]]) 11:05, 6 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==3.5e (or 5e) Magic Item==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to do a wand-like item called a Spellstick? (A possible replacement for spell scrolls!) --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 13:59, 9 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That sounds like it already exits, there are various magic items that allow the wielder to cast spells with it (such as the Glass of Defense from LMoP). --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) (So, yes, it is possible)<br />
<br />
==Admin Assistance==<br />
Hello Geo. We don't know each other but I'm one of the older users of the site. I still occasionally pop in and try to clean up [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. As you can see, there is currently one article that is a double redirect that is locked so I as a normal user can not correct the redirect. Would you be able to edit '''Yuan-Ti, Variant (5e Race)''' so that it redirects directly to [[Yuan-Ti Pureblood (5e Race Variant)]]? My OCD would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 9 March 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thanks for introducing yourself; I've seen your edits occasionally but I don't think we've ever interacted before. Nice to finally meet you.<br />
:I edited the redirect. Not sure why that page was protected in the first place; the protection settings should have been moved along with the page itself. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 22:05, 9 March 2019 (MST)<br />
::Also, thanks for going through the list of double redirects, seeing as most of them were caused by my screwup with the automated text replacement. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 22:12, 9 March 2019 (MST)<br />
:::No problem at all. Been doing it for years. Keeps the OCD in check. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:15, 13 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warning ==<br />
<br />
I am currently going above your head to resolve the issue with my user page. It should be considered in dispute and not changed until further notice. If you continue to vandalize it, you will be blocked.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:10, 9 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:GamerAim&diff=1182864User:GamerAim2019-06-09T23:08:52Z<p>GamerAim: Reverted edits by Quincy (talk) to last revision by GamerAim</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div align="center"><div class="externalimage-holder" style="width:35%; align:center;">[https://discord.gg/dETbRhS https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/287667249261707264/408299454853021726/imageJan-31-10-32-02.png]</div></div><br />
<br />
==== Hello ====<br />
<br />
I'm GamerAim and maybe you've heard of me before. Hopefully, it's all good things, but I understand that there's a fair amount of negative statements about me circling D&D Wiki or associated communications channels. In particular, the users [[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]], [[User:ConcealedWife|ConcealedWife]], [[User:Guy|Guy]], [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] and [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] have made numerous assertions, implications or accusations of me.<br />
<br />
Regarding, ConcealedWife and Guy, I have chosen not to respond their statements. Not because they aren't worth a response, but because they've expressed a desire for me not to, which is why I'm setting the record straight here. Though I will respect their wishes, I do think it's unfair for other users - like you - to only see one side of the conversation and presume I'm such a bad person. If I really was as bad as they say (and their accusations can be vile), I wouldn't have passed two consecutive requests for adminship.<br />
<br />
The truth is, CW and Guy seem to have taken something I said the wrong way at first and decided to take everything I did then on as being hostile. I tried many times to assure them that my intentions were sincere, but they refuse to believe me and I cannot force their opinions to change. I'm sure there were times - in heated arguments that they started - that minor insults were thrown on both sides. We're all human and we can only be pushed so far when we're being insulted before we push back. I may not be proud of my humanity, but I will not deny that it exists. I will not deny that I dropped all pretense and called them as I saw. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I turned out wrong. But I choose to apologize and try harder next time. Unfortunately, some people just want to see the ill in you so I give those users some space. Please take the time yourself to look at how I've responded and under what circumstances. I'm sure you'll see that, although I am flawed, I am not as bad as they say.<br />
<br />
Varkarrus and ConcealedLight are a bit different. Whereas CW and Guy seem to have genuinely took offense to something I did, Vark and CL dislike me because I chose to tell them they were wrong. In Vark's case, it was a particular incident where she told me to do something along the lines of "get the stick out of [my] a**" and I warned her not to use that sort of language against another user. This was on another site. Her response was to try to get me demoted from adminship on ''here''. As I said before, I remained an admin in spite of half the community either spreading misinformation (either blatant lies, blowing small things up, or taking things out of context) or turning against me based on that same information. It isn't pleasant having to defend yourself under those conditions and I will admit I got heated, but those were conditions that should have ''never'' been allowed on D&D Wiki and I think it's unfair to judge me for them. Vark eventually left D&D Wiki and tried to delete all her contributions following a political outburst, proving my point - made in my RfA - that Vark only values her own agenda. I think she's a good person at heart, but doesn't know when to stop crusading against people who sleight her.<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight dislikes me because I have called him out for bullying other users, misuse of administration privileges, and I even warned him for misconduct and otherwise tried to reign in his use of power, which he took as a serious offense. He has gone so far as to compare me doing my job to bullying. He is, in my experience, a liar and a manipulator who tries to play the victim to avoid any responsibility for his actions. I once suggested that we impose a fair and harmless limit on administrators to avoid any theoretical corruption - which later turned out to ''already'' be an existing policy from Wikipedia - and he immediately accused me of trying to force him to provide personal information, which I never implied I'd do, and he'd acted like he hadn't already SHARED that information on multiple occasions. Suffice it to say, CL's complaints almost always root from a conjured affront to his person.<br />
<br />
Geodude671 is a special case. Geodude has betrayed me multiple times, but I never ''really'' held it against him. Geodude is...harmless, if kept in check. He has, in my opinion, a misguided view of what D&D Wiki should be and will pursue it relentlessly if given the opportunity. I truly believe there's no malice or ego involved, no personal offense taken from or intended towards me. But he is shrewd enough to take any opportunity to reduce his opposition. I am his opposition in many matters because I oppose his view of D&D Wiki, so he will support any attempt to reduce my reputation, influence or privileges. But in all matters that don't represent an opportunity to attack me, I do still trust him.<br />
<br />
And that's it, my view on the opinions others express towards me. In many ways, they represent change on D&D Wiki. A change in policy and in culture, that I believe is detrimental to the health of the site and its community. Some oppose me to get their way. Some, because I offended their egos. And others because they cannot see past their own burned bridges. I hope that, reading this, you understand that ''none'' of us are monsters. Just a broken system of too many disparate opinions...<br />
<br />
==== Contributions ====<br />
<br />
* [[Crustacheae (5e Race)|Zoidberg & the Macra Terror]]<br />
* [[Witcher (3.5e Feat)]]<br />
* [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] (Witcher/Supernatural inspired class that needs to be fully finished (though it's finished enough to use))<br />
* [[Eye King (3.5e Creature)]] (It's totally not a Beholder. See, it has ''12'' eyes and ''perfect'' maneuverability!)<br />
* [[Fallout (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)]]<br />
* [[OGC:Main|d20 Open Game Content Publication Transcription Project]]<br />
<br />
==== To Do ====<br />
<br />
* [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]]<br />
** [[3e SRD:Fly]]<br />
** 3e Creature template hyperlinking.<br />
** Sunrod.<br />
** Errata<br />
** Special ability header/redirect link consistency fix (e.g. sonic attack vs sonic attacks)<br />
* OGC<br />
** Fix [[OGC:Races]]<br />
** Swords into Plowshares<br />
** MSRD<br />
** Fallout d20<br />
** Immortals Handbook<br />
** [[The Champion (3.5e Class)]]/Rich Burlew<br />
** OSRIC, FG&G, DD<br />
** Preloads and template examples.<br />
* Convert [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] to Pathfinder.<br />
* That 5e race guidelines citations bit needs finished.<br />
* Website banner.<br />
* D&D Wiki magazine<br />
* FA criteria<br />
<br />
==== I Don't Need This Anymore But I'm Too Sentimental To Remove It ====<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align:left"<br />
|-<br />
! Weapon !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Con1 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Stat2 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Idea3 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Exo4 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | d205 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | PnP6 <br />
|-<br />
|Wattz 1,000 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8/2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+1 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|AEP7 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Enclave || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10<br />
|-<br />
|Solar || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 6d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Defend || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d6|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12<br />
|-<br />
|Alien || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d20 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10+3 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 5d10+30<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Awards ====<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this barnstar for transcribing [[Crime and Punishment]]. This entire transcription, and as a test bed for [[OGC:Main]], is highly noteworthy. Great work! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this Barnstar for tireless dedication to upholding standards, great contributions, major efforts in transcribing OGC and more. Being clever, just, constructive, helpful and dependable are just some of the great qualities you have, and people definitely seem to appreciate that of you, both on the [[Special:Chat|chat]] and throughout the wiki. You are a good moderator, good dandwiki-er, and a good friend. Thank you~ --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I give you this barnstar for your willingness to always help other users, for the massive amount of work you have put into transcribing and fixing [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]], and overall for being an awesome person. Thanks for being a great admin for D&D Wiki!--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{lionring|For being more respectful than many other admins, then remaining calm in the face of unjustified response. I give you this ring, such it may bring you some energy, comfort, and joy even for but a moment. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:03, 25 September 2018 (MDT)}}</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:GamerAim&diff=1182840User:GamerAim2019-06-09T20:50:15Z<p>GamerAim: Reverted edits by Geodude671 (talk) to last revision by GamerAim</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div align="center"><div class="externalimage-holder" style="width:35%; align:center;">[https://discord.gg/dETbRhS https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/287667249261707264/408299454853021726/imageJan-31-10-32-02.png]</div></div><br />
<br />
==== Hello ====<br />
<br />
I'm GamerAim and maybe you've heard of me before. Hopefully, it's all good things, but I understand that there's a fair amount of negative statements about me circling D&D Wiki or associated communications channels. In particular, the users [[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]], [[User:ConcealedWife|ConcealedWife]], [[User:Guy|Guy]], [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] and [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] have made numerous assertions, implications or accusations of me.<br />
<br />
Regarding, ConcealedWife and Guy, I have chosen not to respond their statements. Not because they aren't worth a response, but because they've expressed a desire for me not to, which is why I'm setting the record straight here. Though I will respect their wishes, I do think it's unfair for other users - like you - to only see one side of the conversation and presume I'm such a bad person. If I really was as bad as they say (and their accusations can be vile), I wouldn't have passed two consecutive requests for adminship.<br />
<br />
The truth is, CW and Guy seem to have taken something I said the wrong way at first and decided to take everything I did then on as being hostile. I tried many times to assure them that my intentions were sincere, but they refuse to believe me and I cannot force their opinions to change. I'm sure there were times - in heated arguments that they started - that minor insults were thrown on both sides. We're all human and we can only be pushed so far when we're being insulted before we push back. I may not be proud of my humanity, but I will not deny that it exists. I will not deny that I dropped all pretense and called them as I saw. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I turned out wrong. But I choose to apologize and try harder next time. Unfortunately, some people just want to see the ill in you so I give those users some space. Please take the time yourself to look at how I've responded and under what circumstances. I'm sure you'll see that, although I am flawed, I am not as bad as they say.<br />
<br />
Varkarrus and ConcealedLight are a bit different. Whereas CW and Guy seem to have genuinely took offense to something I did, Vark and CL dislike me because I chose to tell them they were wrong. In Vark's case, it was a particular incident where she told me to do something along the lines of "get the stick out of [my] a**" and I warned her not to use that sort of language against another user. This was on another site. Her response was to try to get me demoted from adminship on ''here''. As I said before, I remained an admin in spite of half the community either spreading misinformation (either blatant lies, blowing small things up, or taking things out of context) or turning against me based on that same information. It isn't pleasant having to defend yourself under those conditions and I will admit I got heated, but those were conditions that should have ''never'' been allowed on D&D Wiki and I think it's unfair to judge me for them. Vark eventually left D&D Wiki and tried to delete all her contributions following a political outburst, proving my point - made in my RfA - that Vark only values her own agenda. I think she's a good person at heart, but doesn't know when to stop crusading against people who sleight her.<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight dislikes me because I have called him out for bullying other users, misuse of administration privileges, and I even warned him for misconduct and otherwise tried to reign in his use of power, which he took as a serious offense. He has gone so far as to compare me doing my job to bullying. He is, in my experience, a liar and a manipulator who tries to play the victim to avoid any responsibility for his actions. I once suggested that we impose a fair and harmless limit on administrators to avoid any theoretical corruption - which later turned out to ''already'' be an existing policy from Wikipedia - and he immediately accused me of trying to force him to provide personal information, which I never implied I'd do, and he'd acted like he hadn't already SHARED that information on multiple occasions. Suffice it to say, CL's complaints almost always root from a conjured affront to his person.<br />
<br />
Geodude671 is a special case. Geodude has betrayed me multiple times, but I never ''really'' held it against him. Geodude is...harmless, if kept in check. He has, in my opinion, a misguided view of what D&D Wiki should be and will pursue it relentlessly if given the opportunity. I truly believe there's no malice or ego involved, no personal offense taken from or intended towards me. But he is shrewd enough to take any opportunity to reduce his opposition. I am his opposition in many matters because I oppose his view of D&D Wiki, so he will support any attempt to reduce my reputation, influence or privileges. But in all matters that don't represent an opportunity to attack me, I do still trust him.<br />
<br />
And that's it, my view on the opinions others express towards me. In many ways, they represent change on D&D Wiki. A change in policy and in culture, that I believe is detrimental to the health of the site and its community. Some oppose me to get their way. Some, because I offended their egos. And others because they cannot see past their own burned bridges. I hope that, reading this, you understand that ''none'' of us are monsters. Just a broken system of too many disparate opinions...<br />
<br />
==== Contributions ====<br />
<br />
* [[Crustacheae (5e Race)|Zoidberg & the Macra Terror]]<br />
* [[Witcher (3.5e Feat)]]<br />
* [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] (Witcher/Supernatural inspired class that needs to be fully finished (though it's finished enough to use))<br />
* [[Eye King (3.5e Creature)]] (It's totally not a Beholder. See, it has ''12'' eyes and ''perfect'' maneuverability!)<br />
* [[Fallout (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)]]<br />
* [[OGC:Main|d20 Open Game Content Publication Transcription Project]]<br />
<br />
==== To Do ====<br />
<br />
* [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]]<br />
** [[3e SRD:Fly]]<br />
** 3e Creature template hyperlinking.<br />
** Sunrod.<br />
** Errata<br />
** Special ability header/redirect link consistency fix (e.g. sonic attack vs sonic attacks)<br />
* OGC<br />
** Fix [[OGC:Races]]<br />
** Swords into Plowshares<br />
** MSRD<br />
** Fallout d20<br />
** Immortals Handbook<br />
** [[The Champion (3.5e Class)]]/Rich Burlew<br />
** OSRIC, FG&G, DD<br />
** Preloads and template examples.<br />
* Convert [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] to Pathfinder.<br />
* That 5e race guidelines citations bit needs finished.<br />
* Website banner.<br />
* D&D Wiki magazine<br />
* FA criteria<br />
<br />
==== I Don't Need This Anymore But I'm Too Sentimental To Remove It ====<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align:left"<br />
|-<br />
! Weapon !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Con1 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Stat2 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Idea3 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Exo4 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | d205 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | PnP6 <br />
|-<br />
|Wattz 1,000 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8/2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+1 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|AEP7 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Enclave || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10<br />
|-<br />
|Solar || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 6d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Defend || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d6|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12<br />
|-<br />
|Alien || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d20 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10+3 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 5d10+30<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Awards ====<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this barnstar for transcribing [[Crime and Punishment]]. This entire transcription, and as a test bed for [[OGC:Main]], is highly noteworthy. Great work! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this Barnstar for tireless dedication to upholding standards, great contributions, major efforts in transcribing OGC and more. Being clever, just, constructive, helpful and dependable are just some of the great qualities you have, and people definitely seem to appreciate that of you, both on the [[Special:Chat|chat]] and throughout the wiki. You are a good moderator, good dandwiki-er, and a good friend. Thank you~ --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I give you this barnstar for your willingness to always help other users, for the massive amount of work you have put into transcribing and fixing [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]], and overall for being an awesome person. Thanks for being a great admin for D&D Wiki!--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{lionring|For being more respectful than many other admins, then remaining calm in the face of unjustified response. I give you this ring, such it may bring you some energy, comfort, and joy even for but a moment. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:03, 25 September 2018 (MDT)}}</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=1182825User talk:Green Dragon2019-06-09T19:14:26Z<p>GamerAim: /* Discord */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
__TOC__<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 (Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 &ndash; 450)<br />
|label16= Archive 16 (Discussions 451 &ndash; 480)<br />
|label17= Archive 17 (Discussions 481 &ndash; 510)<br />
|label18= Archive 18 (Discussions 511 &ndash; 540)<br />
|label19= Archive 19 (Discussions 541 &ndash; 570)<br />
|label20= Archive 20 (Discussions 571 &ndash; 600)<br />
|label21= Archive 21 (Discussions 601 &ndash; 630)<br />
|label22= Archive 22 (Discussions 631 &ndash; 660)<br />
|label23= Archive 23 (Discussions 661 &ndash; 690)<br />
|label24= Archive 24 (Discussions 691 &ndash; 720)<br />
|label25= Archive 25 (Discussions 721 &ndash; 750)<br />
|label26= Archive 26 (Discussions 751 &ndash; 780)<br />
|label27= Archive 27 (Discussions 781 &ndash; 810)<br />
|label28= Archive 28 (Discussions 811 &ndash; 840)<br />
|label29= Archive 29 (Discussions 841 &ndash; 870)<br />
|label30= Archive 30 (Discussions 871 &ndash; 900)<br />
|label31= Archive 31 (Discussions 901 &ndash; 930)<br />
|label32= Archive 32 (Discussions 931 &ndash; 960)<br />
|label33= Archive 33 (Discussions 961 &ndash; 990)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Disengaging from the Discord Discussion ==<br />
<br />
I don't mean to draw attention to myself with this, rather make aware my intent going forward and help explain in future silence on the topic. The whole thing has become something beyond I could have imagined and daunting to even engage in. Surely I don't mind being asked my opinion for it on my talk page, but I am going to try and avoid the current discussion(s). I hope you can understand and wish you luck with the task. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 20:56, 21 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Sounds like a good idea to me. I hope that the discussion's results turn out to be beneficial for you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== What's your problem with me? ==<br />
<br />
You said you had problems with me. Well, I can see the way the wind is blowing and I predict my time left here is short. So, if you want to tell me what your problem with me is, please do.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:38, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Really, where? I don't appreciate how you tell users what they have done and what they have not done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk%3AWarning_Policy&type=revision&diff=1111073&oldid=1111035 I hope you ''appreciate'' the part where you said you "could write more about [my] behavior."] If you have a problem with my behavior, please write more about it :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 08:15, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I will not do such a thing here. These is a place and time for everything, and I choose my actions like I will. Telling other users what to do, or blocking their access through backend sabotaging, is a dictatorship system which we do not have on D&D Wiki. Check Wikipedia for references about what editors are required to do. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I never told you what to do, though? I just invited you to share your feelings if you wanted to. Would you please reread my comments before accusing me of things? Otherwise, I understand if you don't think this is an appropriate place to vent. But I probably won't be checking my D&D Wiki email much anymore, so your window of opportunity to call me out is limited. I'm only trying to help...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 08:49, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"If you have a problem with my behavior, please write more about it" is directly telling me what to do, even though you use the word "please".<br />
:::::"[S]o your window of opportunity to call me out is limited"&ndash; what is this is even supposed to mean? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:04, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::You're misquoting me, GD. I said, "if you '''want''' to tell me" you were free to. I didn't say, if you have a problem, tell me what it is. I said that I was open to hearing your complaints, if you wanted to share them.<br />
::::::And it means that, if you don't want to talk about it on your talk page, and I'm not gonna be checking my email so much, I don't know how you're going to get in touch with me if/when you want to address your grievances. And to be frank, I'm getting a ''very'' strong vibe that I'm not wanted here, by you or anyone else. But hey, I wouldn't want to accuse you of feeling something you don't, so please don't take that as conjecture or accusation or demand. I'm just doubting my longevity in a community that &mdash; in my opinion &mdash; has it out for me. That's what it means. I just don't want to leave anything unsaid, in the event I am forced &mdash; either psychologically or through a block &mdash; to leave D&D Wiki. You asked me what I meant, and now I've answered.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I literally just quoted your exact words from your comment above mine. I answered your initial questions as well, saying that no, I do not want to answer them.<br />
:::::::I understand what you are saying. I don't mind any user, but following consensus, policies, and working in this community are very important for me. I just don't understand how you can be defending sabotage (or maybe the creation of a dictatorship is a better analogy) that did not have any of our underlying values in it. I understand that there are historical examples of sabotage, but they all have their ideas behind them and what has been happening here is using the system to "hack it" into a dictatorship in a sense, and make our users lose the trust in our existing system. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:29, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't feel as much hostility in your above comment, so I'm glad for that. Maybe we can start to rebuild our relationship? I know I did say those words, but they were rephrasing my initial statement. It looks like you just misunderstood a bit, so we're all good. No hard feelings from me. It also looks like you're upset about SgtLion's RfA and my comments there? If you want to talk about that, we can, but I need you to be clear about that because this had nothing to do with what SgtLion did, for me.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
In that interest, let's start from there? I said on the RfA that I didn't necessarily condone SgtLion's underhandedness, but I do understand his motivations. SgtLion felt that there was a problem among D&D Wiki users and he didn't think that you were willing to deal with it the normal way. You say that D&D Wiki isn't a dictatorship and that it's not up to you, but you're the bureaucrat and SgtLion felt that you were absolving users of wrongdoing. In his mind, his only recourse was to do what he did.<br />
<br />
Blame SgtLion if you have to. Demote him, block him, whatever you think you have to do. And rationalize your actions (because you ''are'' the only one who can demote him) however you think appropriate. But please ask yourself why a trusted, long-time admin would do this. Ask why the conflict-adverse SgtLion would risk his standing. What would bring him to that point after all these years? Did SgtLion change, or did the community? Because for SgtLion, the community got worse and you overlooked it. And please, try not to take that personally. He respects you. But you're not infallible, nor did you interact with these users for months in Discord. All you saw were &mdash; in his opinion &mdash; the lies the told you here. Their performance of being law-abiding users, while being underhanded in their own right.<br />
<br />
That idea that other admins were underhanded and the behavior condoned was why I supported SgtLion's RfA. I'm sorry if that, or he, offended you. I guess he violated your trust? But please, like I asked, try to understand why he'd risk upsetting you.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:probably the best thing you’ve said since you RfA’d CL. Well said. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:19, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I have no idea what "interest" you are talking about. You asked me "What's your problem with me?" and I am letting you know my opinion. I'm not taking anything personally, but my "problem with you" is that you are supporting this ideology. I understand what you are saying, that you find this to be much more complicated than from what I can infer from users on D&D Wiki. I'm not arguing with you about your experience from discord, involvements, opinions, or other matters about this. I'm trying my best to answer your question. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:50, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Would also like to request an interaction ban from GA ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I didn't realize doing so was an option but could I also block GA as well? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:10, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
Hey, while we're at it, can I get an interaction ban from Varkarrus, ConcealedWife, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy and Geodude671? Rest assured that anyone who wants a ban from me, I want a ban from them too. I wouldn't think it'd be necessary to get an interaction ban from anyone, much less six people, but here we are \o/--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
Interaction bans are a thing that exists? [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 09:26, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:It's mostly an informal thing and can't really be enforced. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:29, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I may have mislead Discord chat when I said request interaction bans on an admin page. While I don’t think there was a consensus, the discussion more or less led to if you don’t want to interact with others then don’t. If a user repeatedly contacts you when you prefer they don’t, then you can discuss with Admins about a harassment policy being broken. I do apologize for any confusion I may have created. This other route while less formal I think was a good suggestion by SgtLion, like almost everything they contributed to us. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 09:42, 9 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Do people still want interaction blocks? Sorry, I forgot to answer these concerns for a long time. Please let me know what you are considering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:07, 22 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SgtLion (2)|Continuation from SgtLion's RfA]] ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Geodude671 closing the RfA was "just a formality" but its another thing that goes along with what GA/SL reference. On its own, no big deal yet these little things build. As you are one asking for examples of issues, this is one to point out. GA, SL, or I haven't logged every little thing that didn't seem right. It wouldn't be fun, it'd hurt relationships with users, be stressful just doing it, and come across as tattling(?). The little things are less and less I think, but then you get something like the RfA closing. Perhaps old fuddie duddies need to embrace the change. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 07:01, 11 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:SgtLion himself ended [[:Template:News]], which described the result of the RfA. I really don't understand how this is even an issue in your opinion, nor can I condone that it is something as harmful as blocking select users from D&D Wiki through the backend while keeping this work undercover. If you find serious violations of procedure, you may let me know on my talk page. Would this work? I want to keep updated with any problems you find, but this was not one. Changing the user rights is doing the act, not editing a page (or [[:Template:News]]). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:19, 13 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I am not trying, nor did I, to compare anyone ending an RfA prematurely versus abusing backend privileges. If you support minimalizing things people do that go against standard practice or what has been practice because others have done worse I can keep that in mind. Though, I don't think that is what you are saying, just like I didn't say Geo ending an RfA is as harmful as SL's actions.<br />
::At this point, I don't think there is a point in trying to explain why someone so kind and helpful would go to such lengths or why someone so active would change so drastically over a couple months (literal night & day in just weeks). I had something else typed to try and explain but then realized I would be talking till I was blue in the face like SgtLion mentioned they did. I/users can't keep you updated if you aren't willing to listen, understand, and address their issues equally. I assume that sounds quite rude, but I don't know another way to explain how I ''did'' feel, GA & SL fielded. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 07:08, 13 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I must have misunderstood your point, since I thought you were trying to compare things. No, SgtLion changed [[:Template:News]] and [[RfA]] and resigned, so like I already said, this is a moot point. I'm willing to listen, I just may not have understood you right (or you did not understand me right). My talk page is a good place for any problems you may want to discuss with me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:14, 13 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Fair enough [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. I appreciate your time and thank you for it. Cheers! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:18, 13 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Pronouns ==<br />
<br />
So, I was rereading the entire help portal to reacquaint myself with the policies and philosophy of this community, and I noticed something: in almost every instance of a reference of an unspecified hypothetical person, they are referenced via a male pronoun. In the last 5 years the hobby community has had a massive influx of younger players- and the majority of them are female or of unique gender/orientation. I would like to see a standard that expects or recommends anonymous pronouns be non-gender specific, using singular they or him/her format. I would also like to go through the help pages and change the pronouns to suit. Do you agree with adopting this phraseology into the community standards? --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 23:48, 14 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:I must object to the proposed changes. The reason male pronouns are the standard is not because of the D&D community, but because commerical works have used "he" as a the gender neutral pronoun for the past century. No offense, but to change an enduring standard of the hobby in some bizzare attempt at being inclusive of a 5-year fad seems silly to me and like something that would only cause a headache to our readership. In any case, "him" is less awkward in any case than "him/her" or "they". [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 05:35, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::In what way is being more inclusive "bizarre"? And furthermore, what is awkward about singular they? I've used singular they in common speech since I was a child, long before this whole inclusivity thing began. The absence of a genderless pronoun in english is, frankly, a vestigial property of its roots in a primitive and inefficient language that assigned gender to inanimate objects and abstractions. I see no reason to remain loyal to a defective tradition. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 11:40, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::It has always been acceptable to use "they" as a singular, third-person, gender-neutral pronoun; it's usually used to refer to a hypothetical person that could be either gender. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:53, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I thought that using "user" was the norm that we should use. Can we not use "user" for these instances? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:03, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::::I could've worded my statement better. I'm not saying that inclusivity is "bizarre", I am saying the proposed gesture is, as I fail to see what goal it accomplishes beyond the most superficial, nor do I see how it practically helps the community. While "they" is ''technically'' acceptable it is still horrible and clunky. And in my mind it is better to adhere to the tradition of the English language than to force a grammatically weird new one. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:06, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::::There’s far too much support for inclusivity regardless of other ideas Quincy. Green Dragon makes a good suggestion; I’d back away from this one given your position and verbiage thus far. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:23, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::::::That's fair enough. I'm not going to press the issue. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:37, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::::::To use "user" often requires additional phrasing to make it work in a sentence. Instead of just saying "they" or "them" in reference to an already mentioned user, you wind up repeatedly saying "the user" multiple times in a single sentence. If that is preferred though, I can roll with it. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 12:40, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::::::Also, the particular situation that bothers me is that the wiki consistently refers to all DMs as being male. Calling all DMs users may be gender neutral, but also a little odd. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 12:58, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::::::Another method might be to imitate the 5e corebook standard of just choosing a random gender per sentence in which a pronoun is needed. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:12, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I agree with Quincy, the male pronoun has been ¨neutered¨ by the fact that it has for so long been used for anyone. It has, in effect, become gender neutral. And, you would have to change thousands of pronouns if a switch is made.[[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::::::::You have to remember cultivation theory: that small "superficial" things can add up to changes of view over time. Using male pronouns as a stand-in for unknown gender reinforces the concept of male-as-default, while also subtly reinforcing the stereotypes of D&D being male-dominated, both of which comes with a host of problems. Ultimately, yes, its not ''that'' a big deal, I will admit. But, it's also just not a hard thing to implement and if it makes potential users more comfortable that's great. Also: nonbinary genders are not a "recent, 5-year fad" they've been a thing for a long time. A change in culture is allowing them to be more open about who they are, but of course, the assumption that they're a fad doesn't help. I support a policy where the default terminology is to use singular they and "user" interchangeably. And now that I'm aware of that problem with the help portal, maybe I should take the time to fix it. It's no skin off anyone's back if I do so, yeah? I don't see any valid reason why someone would find a problem with me fixing that. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 19:08, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::::::::::Here's a radical idea: how about we leave well enough alone? This fuss over pronouns is just plain silly: using masculine reference by default is a long-standing tradition that harms no one. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, why fix it? You go ahead and use whatever pronoun suits your fancy, and let everyone else do the same: as for the official material, it's good enough as is. This progressive nonsense of meddling with established norms and being being offended over nothing is a waste of everyone's time. --[[User:Sir Dinadan|Sir Dinadan]] ([[User talk:Sir Dinadan|talk]]) 19:54, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::::::::::<3 I only meant that the influx of non-gender-binaries to our hobby has been happening more in the last 5 years, not that their existence has. I am sad to say the worst offenders are pages that I am the primary contributor for. I run a table for all-new players now, and the crowd at my FLGS has changed a lot. It's made me much more aware of the problems they face, and let me tell you: pronouns are NOT superficial to many of these people. Simply acknowledging their valid existence is enough to make them feel valued and respected. It is worthwhile. Thank you for making the effort. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 20:11, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::::::::::::Kydo, I saw you unjustly remove Sir Dinadan's comment. I intended to wash my hands of this argument but nevertheless I must tell you not to do anything like that again or I shall treat it as vandalism and act appropriately. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 20:17, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:For the time being, I insist that as a community we not take any action with regards to the language of the help portal until a consensus a reached. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 20:23, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::Why though? The discussion is in ''adding a policy'' to enforce this. If there is no policy for or against the use of gender neutral pronouns, then there should be no reason why the changes can't remain. If a consensus policy AGAINST the use of gender neutral pronouns forms, only then should it be actively undone, but I don't see such a policy being formed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 20:54, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::That was a clerical error. I apologize. I took <s>several hours</s> a long time to write that, and it seems someone else edited the page before I hit submit. It has happened to me before. Sorry, SirDinadain. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 22:15, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::Can you make the changes to all the pages which you can, and then undo your edits, so that we can see the changes and have the chance to change the page when it is a better word structure, and see what we have left after this? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:12, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
====Making this a formal discussion? ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:04, 15 December 2018 (MST))====<br />
Since the topic of a non-gendered pronoun usage policy is turning into a discussion, we should probably have it somewhere other than a user's talk page. Any idea where? I'm thinking we will need to have separate discussions for:<br />
* In the proposed policy, will "he or she" and its variants be permitted as an alternative to using "they?"<br />
** If so, would the policy put both on equal footing? Or simply state something along the lines of "he or she is an alternative, but usage of singular they is preferred"<br />
* Would it be a strictly enforced policy? or simply considered a guideline? or just not passed at all?<br />
<br />
Personally I support this being a policy. Plus, I find usage of "he or she" and its variants clunky, and ultimately not wholly inclusive as they do not include people who do not use either pronoun. Ultimately, I'd be fine with it simply being a guideline, as that would then at least not prevent anyone from editing pages to follow said guideline.<br />
<br />
:Well, yeah, I guess we could move the discussion elsewhere. We've organized whole projects from GD's talk page in the past though, so I think that's a little officious. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 22:15, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::Sorry. Officiousness really isn't my intention. Officialness is I guess? Plus, organization / keeping things not headache-inducing; Green Dragon's talk page gets really bloated really quickly and I think having a whole separate discussion page per policy proposal is in general just... easier to deal with. If it helps to clarify: I'm with you 100% on implementing this policy (or as close to it as consensus will allow) and I felt doing this might get the topic to be taken nice and seriously and spark a discussion that leads to a conclusion rather than fizzle out and potentially be forgotten. Slowly but surely, I'm getting used to the diplomacy culture of this wiki. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:26, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::Alright. Uh. Well, I guess it would either be it's own policy, in which case it should start as a user subpage, or we could make it part of [[Help:Standards and Formatting]]. There should also be an addendum to the behavior policy that sexist and homophobic rhetoric is not acceptable behavior, if it isn't in there already.<br />
:::You know, there used to be a time when I would just do this stuff without asking and nobody cared. Like when I wrote [[Help:Spirit and Intent]] from scratch. It will take me some getting used to this new attitude people have. It's nice to see actual debate between people who care, even if people disagree with me. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 23:14, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Just a couple things:<br />
::#In Vark's defense, I think people have become accustomed to discussing things on appropriate talk pages in the last year vs the owner's talk page each time. The verbiage "please use the appropriate talk page etc etc etc" by many users could have been trademarked :p<br />
::#[[User:Kydo|Kydo]] is 100% accurate that adapting our speech patterns for singular pronouns does more than anyone knows for people that don't identify with he or she pronouns. Yes, Quincy and Rorix are right that this is simply how the English language is written and means no offense, but people are offended and that matters. If using "they" instead of arguing makes people feel worth something and their lives matter then I'll do it. (Actually started some time ago for what it is worth).<br />
::#In that regard, I don't see issue if someone wishes to update the wiki's Help pages or "official" articles. Going through and drafting policy or expecting others to do this-please don't. I see it as an over reach and forcing others to do something. Let them decide when they would like to include everyone; it is their loss if they don't.<br />
::#I support Quincy's reverts until a consensus is made. I understand the "Be Bold" ideology but being bold seems more a hinderance on this wiki and discussion and patience work decently.<br />
:::I am sure I forgetting some thoughts but trying to keep it "short" for everyone. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 23:09, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I don't see being bold as being a problem as long as discussion is had if that bold edit is reverted (which is what's happening now, which is good). I also support Quincy's reversion until a consensus is formed, and I additionally support preferring "they" over "he or she" for pages where there is not clear precedent for using other wording (the specific case I'm thinking of is 3.5e classes, which from what I can tell use gendered pronouns chosen basically arbitrarily). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:23, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I find the usage of "he or she" really clunky, and not worth removing the gender to get this type of clunky sentence grammar. We are not writing a law book, so we have the liberty to make a few cosmetic changes to make our sentences and paragraphs flow nicely.<br />
:::::Reaching consensus on how we want our cosmetic changes to sentences and paragraphs to be directed like, does not really have a specific discussion, so I don't mind trying to answer the initial questions brought up to me on my talk page. Each specific implementation, when it is not crystal clear, should be brought up on the page's talk pages'.<br />
:::::When our policies, organizations, etc reach into the user's spheres then plural sentences grammatically are much smoother. This is because when using the "high horse" of say policies, and then suddenly making the reader try to understand that it is specifically signaling the user (the "him" or "her" in the sentence) out that they are reading about is a major shift to any sentence. Here is an example, discuss if you don't agree.<br />
:::::"When '''the''' user moves a page into '''his''' userspace before deletion, '''he''' should not move it back into the main namespace."<br />
:::::"When '''a''' user moves a page into '''their''' userspace before deletion, '''they''' should not move it back into the main namespace." --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:59, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== Help Portal Pronoun Modifications ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 21:44, 15 December 2018 (MST)) ===<br />
<br />
Hey, so I took every page on the help portal, and searched for every use of a gendered pronoun that could be replaced by a non-gendered pronoun. I was beginning by implementing changes to the unlocked pages directly, but Quincy undid the changes and ruled they should not remain until a consensus is formed. After that, I instead made copies of all offending pages, with the changes made, and saved them to my User page.<br />
<br />
I made a directory of all these duplicate pages here: [[User:Varkarrus/Help Portal Pronoun Logging]]<br />
<br />
There are a few issues I'd like to bring up for discussion:<br />
<br />
1) There is no harm that can be done in implementing these changes: there was plenty of use of non-gendered pronouns on these pages already. There's no reason for someone to take issues with my changes unless they take issue with the non-gendered pronoun usage that was already present on said page.<br />
<br />
2) The ongoing discussion in the space above is over the implementation of a policy and/or guideline (personally I think it simply being a guideline is sufficient, though a policy would be better) to use non-gendered pronouns when appropriate. This discussion is ''technically unrelated'' to the changes I made. If the policy passes, the changes would be enforced. If the policy does not pass, the changes would not necessarily be prohibited. Either way, the changes ''should'' be allowed.<br />
<br />
3) There is one final issue, one that I can't immediately resolve. Entirely by mistake, it seems the modified versions of the help portal pages show up on the help portal widget, despite them being saved in my user space. This was entirely accidental, and I assume the method of fixing this would require modification to the help portal widget itself to exclude pages from user spaces. My bad, though!<br />
<br />
:No, just remove the help portal template and category from the copies you saved. The help portal uses categories to populate itself. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 22:51, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::Thanks! I fixed it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::I see that! Faster than I could too. You guys are much faster than me. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 23:05, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I am looking through your changes. Some of them are actually wrong. On [[Help:Spirit and Intent]], you removed the usage of "he" but kept the "she" in the same paragraph making it '''very''' awkward. The first change is actually grammatically better. If we can choose a gender, I think we should just either choose "he" or "she". If making the sentence plural works better, then I recommend that we do this. I'll keep trying to find examples of how to explain what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:25, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::::That particular case was unintentional, actually; I aimed to remove both cases.[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:57, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== What Do You Think About My Monster ==<br />
<br />
Hi... I don't really understand much of how this website works but I've made a monster, and I can pick you that you're a significantly important guy on this website, so I was wondering if you take requests for looking at homebrew items and giving feedback on them?<br />
<br />
[[Dungeon Master (5e Creature) | Dungeon Master 5E]]<br />
<br />
I understand if you don't feel like critiquing homebrew items.<br />
<br />
[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:44, 20 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looking at it, it's worthy for {{tl|April Fools}} and {{tl|Design Disclaimer}}. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:48, 20 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Okay, thank you! Didn't even know those existed. :) [[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 05:16, 21 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== We Have a Legal Problem ==<br />
<br />
So, for poop and giggles I decided to make myself a D&D Beyond account and browse their homebrew catalogue. I immediately noticed two things.<br />
<br />
1. Many things originally published to D&D Beyond are being replicated (very poorly) on D&D Wiki. (The [[Abandoned (5e Background)]] is an example of this.)<br />
<br />
2. Many things originally published on D&D Wiki are being by-the-letter duplicated on D&D Beyond. (This has happened to [[Adventurer (5e Background)]].)<br />
<br />
Fearless leader, what should we do? What ''can'' we do? --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 08:15, 28 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
EDIT: There's 40 pages of backgrounds alone on D&D Beyond. This isn't counting every other type of homebrew they make available. No human being has the time it would take to curate both libraries of homebrew material to prevent copyright violations of this nature on this scale. This affects both of us. They could potentially sue us for trying to lay copyright to things they originally published. And vice-versa. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 08:23, 28 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
EDIT 2: They have 105 pages of homebrew character classes. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 08:26, 28 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Kydo asked me to pitch in, so thanks for keeping me in the loop, despite my...vacation <3<br />
<br />
:That said, I'm not real sure what to do here, same as you. Does D&D Wiki have the right to sue other websites for hosting our content illegally? Does "D&D Wiki" as a website claim any copyright to the pages it hosts? As I recall, our GNUFDL attributions are tracked on history pages, so does any person not attributed therein hold copyright to the article? Those are questions I'm sure GD can answer. In the past, he's implied that the website does hold ''some'' copyright to the articles we host, in contexts like this. Do we have any idea if the people re-posting the content over there are the (sole) contributor of the content over here? I find it more likely that it's individuals posting it there illegally, but maybe people just like to cross-post?<br />
<br />
:Finally, if we ''are'' hosting content here illegally, there's not much we can do on that front but operate in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act like every other website does, by taking down content as notified. This seems to work for YouTube, reddit, tumblr, etc. We do have a disclaimer &mdash; I can see it right now &mdash; that says "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" The GNUFDL presumably does not/can not go into effect on work you lack the right to license. Do we have a terms of use? If not, maybe we should throw up a boilerplate, "you indemnify us to any copyright infringement committed by you."<br />
<br />
:I'll try to remember to keep my eye on this page, but it doesn't hurt to ping me on Discord (via PM or my own server, which may or may not still be listed on D&D Wiki) if anyone needs a reply ASAP <3--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:02, 28 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Is there an update on this, GD?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 2 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::They are reviewing the situation and will get back to me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:48, 2 January 2019 (MST)p<br />
<br />
::::Right on 8) Thanks for keeping us updated.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:02, 2 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Hi GD, any update on this? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:12, 14 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help With Tag/Category ==<br />
<br />
Hello there Green Dragon! I just wanted to pop in for a quick question. I realized that my monster, Dungeon Master, should be an NPC, not a normal monster. But I can't figure out how to move it to there to put in a tag for NPC. Is there a way to do this? Thank you! --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:09, 3 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
Hi there Cosmos! I’m not Green Dragon but the solution is add the Category:NPC to the page. It’s prefferred to add it at the bottom of the page with the other categories, at least it’s mine lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 16:13, 3 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Alright, sounds good. I will do it with the other categories too because of organizational XD. No problem about not being GD lol I just didn't feel like posting this on each admin's Talk page so I went to the guy who is the lord of the Wiki :3 --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:21, 4 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::There is always [[User talk:Admin]] too. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 22:12, 4 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Oooh... okay thanks I didn't know something like that existed. I will remember that the next time I have a question :) --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 15:40, 6 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I know I'm kinda interjecting here, but I'm known to be knowledgeable sometimes and you can [https://discord.gg/dETbRhS seek help on Discord] if you'd prefer real-time chat with an admin; I'm usually on a couple times a day and you can find other users there as well :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:02, 7 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: You may have better luck on the [https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV official discord server], though. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Seeing that you have asked for my assistance before, this is quite fine. I am a formatting helper, per [[Help:Helpers Page]], and I prefer that you ask for my help on my talk page. If you have any more questions you may keep doing what you have done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 7 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So... I don't have Discord T-T so yep. And GD, sounds good :) thanks. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 19:54, 8 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Don't worry dude, there is nothing at all wrong with not having a Discord. Heck, I'm an administrator and I personally don't bother with that nonsense. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 21:30, 8 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Race balance review! ==<br />
<br />
Hey man,<br />
<br />
So I recently finished a custom homebrew race for 5e on the wiki, a hivemind race with an adaptive body. I would really appreciate if you could take a look at it, just for balancing and proofreading, take as long as you need because i know that you guys must be overloaded with requests like this. Thanks :)<br />
<br />
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pren_(5e_Race) <br />
<br />
:Sure, done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hey so I updated it a bit to hopefully make it more interesting and balanced, could you take a look at it?<br />
<br />
== Another Editing Question ==<br />
<br />
Hey... I'm back already XD sorry. I just wanted to know how you make one of those tables like for spell lists or damage threshold. I want to know for a variant point buy system for the Pokémon sourcebook I have been working on. I can't find anything in the Help Portal or Meta Page, and I can't make heads or tails of what does what in the pages I've explored to find the coding for the table. Thanks! --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 17:14, 12 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Here's the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables official tables help page for Mediawiki]. We also have [[Help:Table|our own help page]] for tables. If those aren't of help, could you provide a reference for what tables you're talking about and what kind of content you want to put in one?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:31, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Okay thanks! I can sort of figure out the stuff now :) Think I should be good. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Replace Text extension ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GD. How would you feel about installing/asking BD to install the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Replace_Text Replace Text] and/or [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MassEditRegex Mass Edit Regex] MediaWiki extensions? As the name suggests, it allows admins to perform automated text replacement without the assistance of a bot, which would be useful in cases where the same small edit should be made to many pages, for example, correcting common spelling mistakes, or when we changed pages from "5e Archetype" to "5e Subclass." This could potentially be ''very'' useful depending on what we end up deciding (if anything) with regards to [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:34, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hmm. I bet SgtLion could do it if we give him permissions and backend access back. Should we look into that?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:13, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::No. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 13:16, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::No, he does not have my trust. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:25, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, the extension has been installed and admins may use it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:40, 19 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::A new tool that we can use, huh? It looks very interesting. Thanks, GD! [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 13:19, 19 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== [[Rom Pantheon 2 (3.5e Deity)]] ==<br />
<br />
Hey GD, it looks like you placed a {{tl|wikify}} on this page and I think its saying each deity needs its own page? Can you confirm this for me and I could start doing that to clear up the template? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 11:20, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Sure, did my recent edit make this clear? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:38, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Absolutely. Thanks so much, I'll start doing that too then! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:44, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Technical Help? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I started working on this [[Table of Hybrid Races]] page, as a sorta Extension to the 5e Race Variants page, except I hit a snag where the table breaks. Each cell uses a template with a #ifexists call, and apparently there's a limit to how many of those can be on a single page. Do you happen to know of any other way I can go about doing this, then? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== No Advertising? ==<br />
<br />
You don't like advertisers, huh? XD --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 08:25, 28 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Google Ads keep the site running, and the type of ads that that user was proposing are very obtrusive. If I got an email about it then I would have responded. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:36, 28 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ah. And wait, how do Google Ads keep the site running? Sorry for my lack of knowledge, I don't know much about how to run a website XD --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 12:01, 28 January 2019 (MST)<br />
:::The cost of owning a domain(www.dandwiki.com) and the cost to pay a company to host your website equals X. Google acts an intermediary between a company that wants to advertise their services and the website owner. Advertisers pay Google and the owner for advertising their service. The amount received for doing so then goes to the company that hosts the website while excess goes to the owner to do with as they will such as maintaining the domain name, paying for larger storage capacity or buying a yacht. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:49, 28 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::That's the corporate version, right. Hosting a website is not free, but D&D Wiki is not for profit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 21:15, 28 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Huh, interesting. Thanks for telling me. And thank you GD for having this non-profit awesome website up!! :D --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 05:12, 29 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Revenue Opportunity from Fanbyte ==<br />
<br />
Hello <br />
<br />
I represent Fanbyte, A Tencent Company—which is one of the world's largest gaming and technology conglomerates. We are a company of gamers, geeks and enthusiasts—so I think we have a lot in common.<br />
<br />
I want to discuss advertising on your site, and see if you are satisfied with the revenue that the display + video ads are generating. Fanbyte owns and operates several top-grossing, Alexa-ranked sites like Wowhead.com, and recently began ad repping dozens of gaming-focused, community-oriented websites that we have grown into advertising revenue powerhouses. <br />
<br />
Our partner sites typically see 3-5x boost in RPMs.<br />
<br />
I would love to discuss your advertising strategy and see if we can shift our gaming-focused advertising your way. Are you free next week for a quick call?<br />
<br />
:Ah, GD dislikes advertisers on his talk page. And given what is ''directly above this'', this is quite ironic. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Most certainly XD the second I saw this I was like "Huh? Didn't he see what is above, which says NO ADVERTISING" LOL. GD does not respond to advertising on his talk page, but he will most like respond if it is an email, so I suggest you email him. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 11:42, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Oh, and it would not be a bad idea to sign your posts as well, with four tildes. Like this- [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 12:21, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Rorix, you can't really show the example, since it turns into your signature. It goes like this, but without spaces. - - ~ ~ ~ ~ --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::You can just put nowiki tags around it like so: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:17, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Huh, interesting. Thanks for telling me :) --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:54, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::The ¨Like this¨ was meant to show the result, not the four tildes. I knew it would change, that was the point. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 16:30, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Oh sorry XD --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 16:59, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
I'd like to mention this user contacted the Facebook page and I directed them to GD's talk page. So even if they had read above, they were still advised to use GD's talk page. I'll be sure to specifically mention emailing GD in the future. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 21:28, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== to green dragon ==<br />
You undid my edits without my permission. It probably was an accident and in that case sorry but you did it twice which was odd. And I am '''not''' being hacked or something I swear. It's okay if you felt "oh dear, they must have accidentally deleted content" but no. It's my choice, if you feel differently ask. And I'm not trying to attack or shame you I'm just notifying you. --[[User:Flushed crush|Flushed crush]] ([[User talk:Flushed crush|talk]]) 14:17, 11 February 2019 (MST)flushed crush<br />
<br />
:The issue GD had was that you edited other people's messages. It's fine to remove them entirely from your own talk page (though it's recommended you don't), but editing other people's comments is a HUGE no-no. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:42, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::oh, in that case --[[User:Flushed crush|Flushed crush]] ([[User talk:Flushed crush|talk]]) 14:53, 11 February 2019 (MST)flushed crush<br />
<br />
== I'm creating a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I'm creating a homebrew class and I need some help with a few things to make it more balanced. I wanted a system different to that of the book, in which sorcerers use magic spaces to use your skills. I was thinking of using acquired points per level, but I need help to know how many points you earn per level and how many spells can be used before taking a long rest and how many points each magic will cost. If you can assist me with this I'd be extremely grateful!<br />
(I think a conversation by e-mail would be more appropriate.)<br />
<br />
:Which one of these classes most represents the type of system you want to develop? The [[Hermetic Mage (5e Class)|hermetic mage]], [[Magi (5e Class)|magi]], or [[Jedi/Sith (Variant) (5e Class)|jedi/sith]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Relics==<br />
<br />
What is the Policy on anything that deals with real world religion? --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:To my knowledge, there's no specific policy dealing with things from the real world. As long as pages dealing with the real world adhere to the policies that every other page must adhere to, there is no problem. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 17:06, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Therr are even a few deity pages from various religions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:47, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==DandDWiki Background==<br />
<br />
It was brought to my attention that there were issues with the current background for the wiki. CL mentioned that there might have been vague copyright concerns, though he isn't sure about the validity of that claim. <br />
Regardless, I've put aside some time to work on a new background that might suit the wiki. I've spent some time considering various options and this is the image I've ended up creating (https://sta.sh/02dlqqwcepwz), which I then edited to be more user friendly towards the rest of the attributes. You can see that edit including a preview here [[https://puu.sh/CS3ZN/d8c4b014b8.png]].<br />
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the possible implementation of a(not necessarily mine) new background image. -- ConcealedWife ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 11:26, 26 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I find that really neat. Yes, there have been some questions about the legality of the current background.<br />
:What are your reasons for "Frontalis"? We could potentially change it to "Noitaroballoc" (Collaboration spelled backwards). I already want to change it to your image! What color should we change the extended bottom on some pages too with this background? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:26, 26 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I'm fine with "Noitarballoc". I chose Frontalis as a reference to the wiki's front / newspage but I can change that without issue. The colour #ada78c should serve as a good colour for the extended bottom, but I'm open to any suggestions. I'll edit the name of Frontalis now and I'll e-mail you the final version of that. -- ConcealedWife ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 12:59, 26 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== GNU/Copyright/User change of Heart ==<br />
<br />
GD, can you comment on the [[Talk:Archivist Tradition (5e Subclass)]] page about an issue regarding a user wanting to remove their contributions to the site please? I only grasp the concept, but cannot phrase things adequately. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:07, 27 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Medical Examiner(3.5e or 5e)==<br />
<br />
Is there a DC guideline for determining cause of death by use of Heal (or Medicine)?--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 13:20, 2 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Why would you die if you are being healed? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:07, 3 March 2019 (MST)<br />
::I believe what is being asked is if there is a guideline for the DC of using the Heal or Medicine skills as an autopsy. Depending on the strangeness of the cause of death, time, and other circumstances, I would say probably anywhere from 10 to 30. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 12:53, 3 March 2019 (MST)<br />
:::Yes, I did mean using the Heal or Medicine skills as an autopsy. --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 18:49, 6 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Wolf Lord ==<br />
<br />
Hey I was wondering if you could take a look at the class. I made some edits and wonder if it's what you wanted it to be or if you could give me some tips on it<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Don't forget to sign your posts J3Was. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 13:57, 13 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vampire Lord ==<br />
<br />
Were you the one who wanted to discuss the <br />
Vampire Lord subclass with the creator?<br />
: (Psst. Sign your posts with four tildes.) [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 16:02, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Not necessarily, but if the subclasses are there then a main contributor can more easily review them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:55, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Requesting a Name Change ==<br />
<br />
Can i please get another name? If Kara taken isn't taken, i would like to be called kara.<br />
--[[User:Doctor Dee|Doctor Dee]] ([[User talk:Doctor Dee|talk]]) 13:56, 17 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:37, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== FA/QA Help ==<br />
<br />
Hi GD, since you're listed I am contacting you for input on a QA. [[Talk:Bag of Wizards (5e Equipment)]]. If you got time, thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:27, 20 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Stand User 2nd Variant ==<br />
<br />
Although i appreciate you trying to make contributions, i fear the contributions you made to the class were greatly overpowered. I am going to have to purge the changes that occurred due to the mass edit, but if you'd like to tweak somethings in the class feel free to. I work hard to keep the class I created as closed to balanced and PHB material as possible. <br />
<br />
Sincerely, {{unsigned|ddoggh}}<br />
<br />
== Stand User 2nd Variant ==<br />
<br />
I'm sorry for blaming you for the poor changes made to my class. I see now that you tried your best to nullify the poor decisions made by anonymous users. I thank you for your contributions and wish you the best on your journey.<br />
<br />
Sincerely, {{unsigned|ddoggh}}<br />
<br />
== Dark Knight class ==<br />
<br />
Hello, my name is Zenith49 and i am have been developing my own Dark Knight class for the 5E system. while i had been searching for references and material to go on, i stumbled onto the one on this site. i did take great inspiration from this version along with other sources in development but couldn't find the original author for this one. wanting to give credit and to reference my sources i could only find your user name and Geodude671. wanting to know who was/all are the creators for the home-brew and for possible discussions on like projects? please and thank you for your time.<br />
<br />
:Looking at the page history, the [[Dark Knight (5e Class)]] appears to have been primarily contributed to by users who were not logged in. Just credit “users of D&D Wiki”. Beyond that I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 21:54, 11 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Question==<br />
<br />
are we allowed to create more than 1 account? (I'm just curious.) --Redrum 17:16, 17 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry This article may help] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:41, 18 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== A Couple Problematic Users ==<br />
<br />
Hello there, I'm here this time to report a couple users.<br />
<br />
One, there is a user with a name that I'm guessing is not within the rules, a user by the name of [[User:Negro|Negro]]...<br />
<br />
Two, a user on the Tavern, [[User:Carlus|Carlus]], keeps chatting with periods and just a few letter. He's made a lot of lines in the Tavern, and I don't know if this is enough to act on but it seems pointless and annoying to me.<br />
<br />
Thanks! --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 19:09, 27 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I just took care of the problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 19:27, 27 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Trouble formatting a Homebrew Class ==<br />
<br />
Hi Peter,<br />
<br />
I am not new user here, but I have not really posted much to really understand how it all works. I recently finished a Homebrew Class I would like to post, but I am having a really hard time getting it to appear in a neat, orderly and easy to follow fashion. I was wondering if you could help me or maybe refer me to another admin if you are really busy. Thank you.<br />
<br />
:Okay, I took a look at it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:37, 5 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry! I should have said that one has been giving me trouble but the one I am talking about I have not even posted because I can't really get any where with it. It you want to take a look at it I have PDF on my Google Drive (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2_RHVhz-pDYHuQfQaONl_BLEbCoQjFs/view?usp=sharing). The main issue is the organization of the class on the page here and the tables make things easier to follow and I can't add any here plus when I try to rearrange them it becomes hard to follow.<br />
<br />
Again, I am sorry I don't think about specifying which class at the time.<br />
<br />
::I can't help you there, sorry. I don't know about that formatting at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:08, 5 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Slayer Mage Class ==<br />
<br />
Hey man, sorry for just editing your Slayer Mage without asking, it was on the too overpowered list, and since the class was based off of fairy tail i couldn't help but do something, sorry for just doing stuff without checking with you, but would it be fine if i would like to add some more ideas if i hav any? If not, then fine. [[User:Garret|Garret]] 23.28, 6 May 2019 (GMT+8)<br />
<br />
:'''Be bold.''' Your edits are most welcome, and can always be reverted if they are counter-collaboration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:47, 13 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Actually, i did make some sort of downside part of the class to make it not that op in later levels, but i reverted it back bcoz of god slayer, demon slayers and god slayers arent as fleshed out as dragon slayers, so not much are known about them. Dragon Slayers after a certain point, when their power is very high, they become vulnerable to motion sickness. Demon slayers has a downside, but idk how to work with it. If someone learns demon slayer magic too fast, they'll get cursed, but how to make it doable is hard, so i just settled sith them getting more damaged by radiant type attacks. God slayers are like the least fleshed out ones even now, you need to be really experienced to make a downside for it. [[User:Garret|Garret]]<br />
<br />
:I agree that some good changes have been made since the page has been protected. You really need to address the issue which is stated on {{tl|needsbalance}} however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 21:35, 14 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Also. Is it fine to take out this rule about using only a handful of spell schools it really brings it down to more or less 20 spells that can be learned. [[User:Garret|Garret]]<br />
<br />
== Requesting removal of all of my content ==<br />
<br />
I would like the removal of as much content that I have produced as possible. I no longer want it to be available to this community. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 08:46, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Go ahead and use our policies to get your work done. I don't have time to fulfill your desires. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:48, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Requesting eyes and balance edits for the Samurai ==<br />
<br />
Hey just wondering if I could get a balancing eye on this class please: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Samurai_(5e_Class). It's pretty loaded with features and some of them definitely ignore a 5e's bound accuracy model. I like the flavor of it, I just think that it needs to be reigned in some. Mostly in the raw number of features. Heck, it learns more stances than are actually available. Will drop a NeedsBalance tag on it as well. Thank you for your time.--[[User:Gr7mm Bobb|Gr7mm Bobb]] ([[User talk:Gr7mm Bobb|talk]]) 17:17, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Discord ==<br />
<br />
Please check Discord ASAP.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:14, 9 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:GamerAim&diff=1182824User:GamerAim2019-06-09T19:13:53Z<p>GamerAim: Reverted edits by Quincy (talk) to last revision by GamerAim</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div align="center"><div class="externalimage-holder" style="width:35%; align:center;">[https://discord.gg/dETbRhS https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/287667249261707264/408299454853021726/imageJan-31-10-32-02.png]</div></div><br />
<br />
==== Hello ====<br />
<br />
I'm GamerAim and maybe you've heard of me before. Hopefully, it's all good things, but I understand that there's a fair amount of negative statements about me circling D&D Wiki or associated communications channels. In particular, the users [[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]], [[User:ConcealedWife|ConcealedWife]], [[User:Guy|Guy]], [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] and [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] have made numerous assertions, implications or accusations of me.<br />
<br />
Regarding, ConcealedWife and Guy, I have chosen not to respond their statements. Not because they aren't worth a response, but because they've expressed a desire for me not to, which is why I'm setting the record straight here. Though I will respect their wishes, I do think it's unfair for other users - like you - to only see one side of the conversation and presume I'm such a bad person. If I really was as bad as they say (and their accusations can be vile), I wouldn't have passed two consecutive requests for adminship.<br />
<br />
The truth is, CW and Guy seem to have taken something I said the wrong way at first and decided to take everything I did then on as being hostile. I tried many times to assure them that my intentions were sincere, but they refuse to believe me and I cannot force their opinions to change. I'm sure there were times - in heated arguments that they started - that minor insults were thrown on both sides. We're all human and we can only be pushed so far when we're being insulted before we push back. I may not be proud of my humanity, but I will not deny that it exists. I will not deny that I dropped all pretense and called them as I saw. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I turned out wrong. But I choose to apologize and try harder next time. Unfortunately, some people just want to see the ill in you so I give those users some space. Please take the time yourself to look at how I've responded and under what circumstances. I'm sure you'll see that, although I am flawed, I am not as bad as they say.<br />
<br />
Varkarrus and ConcealedLight are a bit different. Whereas CW and Guy seem to have genuinely took offense to something I did, Vark and CL dislike me because I chose to tell them they were wrong. In Vark's case, it was a particular incident where she told me to do something along the lines of "get the stick out of [my] a**" and I warned her not to use that sort of language against another user. This was on another site. Her response was to try to get me demoted from adminship on ''here''. As I said before, I remained an admin in spite of half the community either spreading misinformation (either blatant lies, blowing small things up, or taking things out of context) or turning against me based on that same information. It isn't pleasant having to defend yourself under those conditions and I will admit I got heated, but those were conditions that should have ''never'' been allowed on D&D Wiki and I think it's unfair to judge me for them. Vark eventually left D&D Wiki and tried to delete all her contributions following a political outburst, proving my point - made in my RfA - that Vark only values her own agenda. I think she's a good person at heart, but doesn't know when to stop crusading against people who sleight her.<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight dislikes me because I have called him out for bullying other users, misuse of administration privileges, and I even warned him for misconduct and otherwise tried to reign in his use of power, which he took as a serious offense. He has gone so far as to compare me doing my job to bullying. He is, in my experience, a liar and a manipulator who tries to play the victim to avoid any responsibility for his actions. I once suggested that we impose a fair and harmless limit on administrators to avoid any theoretical corruption - which later turned out to ''already'' be an existing policy from Wikipedia - and he immediately accused me of trying to force him to provide personal information, which I never implied I'd do, and he'd acted like he hadn't already SHARED that information on multiple occasions. Suffice it to say, CL's complaints almost always root from a conjured affront to his person.<br />
<br />
Geodude671 is a special case. Geodude has betrayed me multiple times, but I never ''really'' held it against him. Geodude is...harmless, if kept in check. He has, in my opinion, a misguided view of what D&D Wiki should be and will pursue it relentlessly if given the opportunity. I truly believe there's no malice or ego involved, no personal offense taken from or intended towards me. But he is shrewd enough to take any opportunity to reduce his opposition. I am his opposition in many matters because I oppose his view of D&D Wiki, so he will support any attempt to reduce my reputation, influence or privileges. But in all matters that don't represent an opportunity to attack me, I do still trust him.<br />
<br />
And that's it, my view on the opinions others express towards me. In many ways, they represent change on D&D Wiki. A change in policy and in culture, that I believe is detrimental to the health of the site and its community. Some oppose me to get their way. Some, because I offended their egos. And others because they cannot see past their own burned bridges. I hope that, reading this, you understand that ''none'' of us are monsters. Just a broken system of too many disparate opinions...<br />
<br />
==== Contributions ====<br />
<br />
* [[Crustacheae (5e Race)|Zoidberg & the Macra Terror]]<br />
* [[Witcher (3.5e Feat)]]<br />
* [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] (Witcher/Supernatural inspired class that needs to be fully finished (though it's finished enough to use))<br />
* [[Eye King (3.5e Creature)]] (It's totally not a Beholder. See, it has ''12'' eyes and ''perfect'' maneuverability!)<br />
* [[Fallout (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)]]<br />
* [[OGC:Main|d20 Open Game Content Publication Transcription Project]]<br />
<br />
==== To Do ====<br />
<br />
* [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]]<br />
** [[3e SRD:Fly]]<br />
** 3e Creature template hyperlinking.<br />
** Sunrod.<br />
** Errata<br />
** Special ability header/redirect link consistency fix (e.g. sonic attack vs sonic attacks)<br />
* OGC<br />
** Fix [[OGC:Races]]<br />
** Swords into Plowshares<br />
** MSRD<br />
** Fallout d20<br />
** Immortals Handbook<br />
** [[The Champion (3.5e Class)]]/Rich Burlew<br />
** OSRIC, FG&G, DD<br />
** Preloads and template examples.<br />
* Convert [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] to Pathfinder.<br />
* That 5e race guidelines citations bit needs finished.<br />
* Website banner.<br />
* D&D Wiki magazine<br />
* FA criteria<br />
<br />
==== I Don't Need This Anymore But I'm Too Sentimental To Remove It ====<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align:left"<br />
|-<br />
! Weapon !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Con1 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Stat2 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Idea3 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Exo4 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | d205 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | PnP6 <br />
|-<br />
|Wattz 1,000 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8/2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+1 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|AEP7 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Enclave || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10<br />
|-<br />
|Solar || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 6d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Defend || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d6|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12<br />
|-<br />
|Alien || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d20 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10+3 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 5d10+30<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Awards ====<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this barnstar for transcribing [[Crime and Punishment]]. This entire transcription, and as a test bed for [[OGC:Main]], is highly noteworthy. Great work! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this Barnstar for tireless dedication to upholding standards, great contributions, major efforts in transcribing OGC and more. Being clever, just, constructive, helpful and dependable are just some of the great qualities you have, and people definitely seem to appreciate that of you, both on the [[Special:Chat|chat]] and throughout the wiki. You are a good moderator, good dandwiki-er, and a good friend. Thank you~ --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I give you this barnstar for your willingness to always help other users, for the massive amount of work you have put into transcribing and fixing [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]], and overall for being an awesome person. Thanks for being a great admin for D&D Wiki!--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{lionring|For being more respectful than many other admins, then remaining calm in the face of unjustified response. I give you this ring, such it may bring you some energy, comfort, and joy even for but a moment. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:03, 25 September 2018 (MDT)}}</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Deletion_Policy&diff=1182794Help talk:Deletion Policy2019-06-09T17:24:43Z<p>GamerAim: /* Vark's Good Faith */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>I know you said "be bold" but I'd rather keep the writing style consistent, if you don't mind making a few changes?<br />
<br />
#'''Sole contributor requests deletion.''' Please make it clear that this only applies to insubstantial articles, i.e. articles which were blanked shortly after creation and which do not qualify as "usable" articles. We do not delete articles simply by user request, as this could be deleterious to the people who use the site. This is one of the causes of a split that occurred among staff years ago :(<br />
#'''Speedy Deletion.''' I believe that [[Template:needsadmin]] is typically used to call out a need for speedy deletion, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Just something worth considering :)<br />
#'''Not English.''' I do recall that, under specific circumstances, non-English pages are allowed. I think the context was that a non-English campaign setting is allowed?<br />
--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You're right. It might be for the best that changes this bold weren't made without a discussion.<br />
:#I would like another opinion on this before adding it in and/or making this policy official. In my own time, I've seen several substantial articles deleted solely due to "Speedy deletion criteria G7" and "author request," and only one or two instances where this was denied. (Iirc at least one of those instances ended in nothing but a furious user and the retention of content that needed improvement, anyway. Doesn't seem to me like that goes well, but I could be wrong.)<br />
:#It is and can be, but even before I became an admin it was apparent to me that direct notification gathers a response more swiftly than that template. If you want it can be added in, but even if it follows precedent I don't really see it being as effective.<br />
:#To me this seems rather dubious. I would like another opinion covering this explicitly before adding it in. Do you know what campaign setting(s) to which this applied? Do you remember who else might have been involved in the instance(s) where a non-English campaign setting was allowed?<br />
:- [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"G7" should only be invoked in the case of incomplete articles, and maybe only shortly after creation (not sure about that last part). Completed articles should never be deleted under "G7." I don't think I wrote that clearly the first time, but either way GD can confirm this whenever he responds. I was referring to the needsadmin template as being used in place of the delete template, not suggesting that it's improper to ask on the Admin talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but again I don't think it really ''matters'' which template is used to summon a speedy deletion, just saying which one I've seen used for it most often. GD himself allowed the campaign setting to remain, as I recall, but I think it was subsequently deleted for normal reasons. If GD thinks it's a good idea, we could put a note saying to ask him for permission before adding non-English content. Otherwise, I'm fine with continuing our official English-only stance with no written exceptions.<br />
<br />
::I'm mostly sharing my experience with policy here, not any personal opinion of mine, though I do feel strongly about not deleting good content just because OP wants it removed. So long as GD clears up these points, I can't think of any major issues I have with your proposal. I apologize if I came off as dismissive of it just because I only shared suggested corrections!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:01, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::#I agree with GA here.<br />
::#I agree with Guy here that it doesn't seem all that effective. If anything its a preference but not a hard rule.<br />
::#I was involved in that. If I recall correctly, I asked GD about it when I happened upon a largely incomplete setting in Spanish(I believe) and it was deleted. I'm unsure about the name but I believe it was on his talk page.<br />
:::Other then that, this is well written and seems pretty comprehensive. I have no qualms about making this policy atm. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think this is pretty awesomely written, top notch. I've made three tiny additions that I'm hoping aren't controversial, but please anyone speak up or edit them constructively if so.<br />
::::Non-English campaign settings / OGL content are allowed (though, we've historically had a higher required standard of quality for them); We semi-recently deleted a [[Serpia (5e Campaign Setting)|foreign campaign setting]], but this decision was made because of the incompletion and poor quality. I do agree with GamerAim on their points, too, we should be discouraging the use of G7 best we can, within reason. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As it appears to be consensus, I've downplayed "G7." It now should read that it ''allows'' an administrator to speedily delete for this reason, but makes it apparent (hopefully) that this alone shouldn't constitute deletion of quality content.<br />
:::::The part about non-English content was reworked to not apply if a translation is included. In practice, any content not in English at all could effectively be immune to all the other reasons for deletion, just because it's very possible no active users of D&D Wiki may be able understand it. To me seems ''potentially'' very problematic, especially if it's in a language more esoteric than Spanish. If this still isn't lenient enough, I suppose the line can be deleted entirely.<br />
:::::GD's edit summary suggests he's already given this approval, though knowing he's busy it might've been a quick skim that missed finer bits like those brought up here. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm happy enough with this policy and all the latest editions, thus far. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:19, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you remember the articles you mentioned being deleted, would you please restore them? I remembered a specific example, and as per [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kaleid_Ooze_%283.5e_Creature%29&type=revision&diff=554355&oldid=554287 here] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&direction=next&oldid=556054#Please_remove_all_my_material_from_this_Wiki here], users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want it uploaded here anymore. I hope this clarifies things :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:03, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It is worth noting that in the six year period that has passed since the precedents you are citing, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent {{dash}} although clearly precedent differs, which is part of the reason I worked on this. Are you suggesting the '''author request''' portion again be changed?<br />
::::Oh. I fear I now understand why you edited that portion of this (still unofficial) policy. I assume every single time you see a page deleted by author request, you intend to "disagree" with that deletion?<br />
::::... Hopefully I'm jumping to false conclusions, but, I can't help but find that possibility very disappointing. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:45, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As stated elsewhere, it has been solid and longstanding policy not to delete work by author request unless it's unplayable anyway, been around a very short time, or otherwise exceptional circumstances. I don't care to go hunting for ye olde talk page that is miles long with argument over this policy, but the end state is - Nobody owns the work that is posted to D&D Wiki, and we rarely grant the optional courtesy of removing that work just because the author asked for it. Unless [[User:Green Dragon]] has had a major change of heart on this matter (in which case, we should discuss further), the policy should reflect this. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::And please don't passively berate people for making valid contributions to policy; GamerAim is trying to reflect and vocalise the longstanding position this wiki has very strongly held. Speculation and declaring your disappointment over imagined acts doesn't help anybody. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::To be clear, I'm only enforcing long-standing policy as SgtLion said. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and if discussion with GD decides that we should enforce user ownership on D&D Wiki, I will enforce our new policy. My only intent thus far is to educate newer and less-informed administrators (and other users) on our established procedures, not to enforce my own "interpretation" of policy based on a single edit from years before I even joined. The recent shift to improving our codification of policy is, well, recent. Older admins - even myself, a relatively newer admin - tended to have this understanding of the spirit and intent, policy and history of D&D Wiki. I'm not knocking any of the newer admins who came to D&D Wiki with beliefs that greatly differ from those D&D Wiki was founded on. I'm just saying that this is why many policies are buried away in old talk page discussions because we didn't always write down our consensus after it was reached.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I believe I was the first admin to start citing G7 on this wiki, although I admit I do not recall the context. It may have been a case where the author realized they did not want to release the content under GFDL. It can be a useful procedure for uncontroversial dispute resolution, and also those cases where a user makes an incomplete page then blanks it.<br />
::::::: Now, about these situations where there are old articles (perhaps very good ones) with a user request for deletion. I know historically we have not wanted to let go of these pages, and strictly these pages are not "owned" by the author. This part of G7 is about behaving with good faith, perhaps we should be respecting these users wishes. From a Wikipedia point of view, it's not a deletion process that should even go through a discussion. Having said that, G7 is ''very fragile'' - all it takes is another user to make a non-trivial edit and G7 is invalidated.--{{unsigned|Marasmusine}}<br />
<br />
::::::::Indeed you were, as I remember. I think all the points you present are valid. I do vaguely remember Green Dragon taking a specific strong stance on this that is in-line with what you've said. When I can find the relevant discussion page, or they get a moment to specify again, we can probably be clearer on the matter. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the discussion I was thinking of was [[User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages]], where actually Marasmusine was more involved than I. Though this was a time when courteous spirit played a bigger part than hard policy, so it's hard to imagine the same process going so smoothly anymore. As such, and due to conflicting precedents, I don't mind us going any which way on this policy, it seems whatever works, just as long as we make it clear. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 01:30, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::Looking at that discussion, it seems Green Dragon's concern is that we would be setting a precedent of breaking protocol to meet a user's demands; or starting a slippery slope of deleting things willy-nilly. It's because of the TierArea incident that I started using Wikipedia's speedy deletion critiera to show there is a framework for this. In the same way, we don't have to use the two-week deletion process for a page that just says "LOLOLOL" (criteria G3), unused redirects (criteria G6), material under copyright (G12), or the all too frequent "empty-but-the-template" pages (A3).<br />
:::::::::As for misusing the deletion tool, the point of being an admin is that they can be trusted to use their judgement to make exceptions when it betters the wiki. If there's a pattern of misuse, it's back to RfA with you :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, can we agree to put this policy as written into effect? I think the current wording of 'user request' sufficiently balances that we are under no obligation to delete articles under sole contributor request, but can where judgment allows. <br />
:Or do we want to adjust a clause to say that G7 is not valid where is likely to be controversial, or for substantial content (such as the deletion of featured articles or entire campaign settings)?<br />
:Either way, these few sentences seem to be the only part of contention; If it is, can we just exclude that section 'til we agree on it? I'm still seeing admins implementing deletions improperly as I type, so it'd be nice to a have a super clear policy to point to so we can all be on the same page. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 09:37, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I think the current version could be implemented, yes. As you stated, G7 is the only point of contention, it seems like, so I'll comment that part out and then move this into the Help namespace. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This discussion shows me how important it is to have this policy. Everyone has different perspectives about how to delete pages. If it's not written down, it leads to some very heated situations. But, in recollection, it has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page.<br />
:::I am grateful to work with a written down policy about page deletions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I am also grateful; your suggestion to codify our deletion policy after years of informal changes was a good one :) So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion now? An article can be deleted solely for that reason? I've no issue with this, as it seems your stance has changed over the years, but I worded it that way to be doubly sure before we write this in stone! If this is indeed the case, we should also go forward with deleting the Meadowlands campaign setting (again)?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::When I used the word "always" above, simply, I meant to use that word. I have never denied a deletion by authors request except for speedy deletions and deletions of licensing problems (which is in the best interests of D&D Wiki). I don't understand why users want their content to be deleted occasionally (it seems like a waste of their work), and my stance on this has not changed either. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::It was a yes or no question. Please say "yes" or "no" to "So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion?"--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yes, currently (and always) that is a valid reason for deletion. Note: '''sole''' contributor, not '''main''' contributor. We likely need more input from more users if we are to change this policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've been operating under the mentality of Wikipedia's CSD G7, which lets pages be deleted speedily upon request of the sole ''significant'' contributor. I take this to mean that a page's creator can request deletion even if another user has made edits like fixing grammar or formatting issues, adding/changing/removing categories, or other minor edits (minor in scope, not necessarily only edits marked as "minor"). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:14, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Thank you! If no one else does so first, I will make sure the wording on this page reflects that articles can be proposed and deleted for that reason. I will also make it clear that they cannot be speedy deleted for that reason under Wikipedia G7. I think Geodude is also right to ask if minor edits from other users void this deletion reason. I assume so, but clarity is always appreciated.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::"Sole ''significant'' contributor" makes more sense for the policy than just "sole contributor" since that does not explicitly state the interactions about maintenance and minor edits. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I-I think this means we've finally all agreed on and codified our deletion policy, speedy deletes and all. Do we celebrate now? This was a collaborative effort between many administrators and other users and I am pleased to have been a part of it \o/ --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:19, 11 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Should we be able to speedily delete pages with no content whatsoever? I'm not talking about pages which are simply sparse; I'm talking about pages like [[Hacker]] and [[Aequor de Chao]] which contain virtually no content at all. I'm mainly comparing this to Wikipedia's CSDs A1 and A3. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:58, 20 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I consider that a reasonable proposal. If no one objects, go ahead and make the appropriate changes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Seems fine to me too. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:10, 22 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It's been a few days and no one objected so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, here we go. Based on the discussion here and [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages here], as well as all the reading I've done and all the back and forth across the wiki recently, I'm just going to go ahead and outline all my arguments as simply as possible in an effort to just get this whole thing over with. I'm going to be blunt, but I'd like to say up front that I have no ill intent or desire to be rude or disrespectful. As I've said in my own user page and several other places, I consider you all my seniors in these matters and in tabletop, and I'd also like to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I'll number my points and try to be as organized as possible regarding this so people can respond easily. There needs to be discussion; talking through a problem is how it gets resolved.<br />
:1) Let me start by saying, right away, that this business of speaking entirely through text has been very messy. It's incredibly difficult to tell, especially when people speak in such a high-brow manner (as I am now, because of the atmosphere and perceived standard of discourse), someone's disposition. I would like to think I've simply been misinterpreting how admins feel, but my current perception is that Green Dragon, ConcealedLight, and ConcealedWife think users like myself or Varkarrus are peons not worth talking to or listening to, and our opinions, arguments, and emotions mean nothing, logical or not. There seems to be a great deal of bias being thrown around, and after Geodude told me that this wiki does not operate strictly according to written policy, like a bureaucracy would, my fear as only deepened in this regard. I don't want to remain in an environment where I feel as though my role is to not ask questions and pump out content that will then go on to not be respected, because that's exactly what seems to be developing here.<br />
:2) Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor. I can see there was some discussion about whether grammar or balance help was a significant contribution, but the fact that the term is undefined means that any admin can interpret it on a case by case basis and use the term to exercise power for power's sake. I would argue that this has happened on [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages, where there seems to be perceived value to the wiki in holding the work hostage by using ambiguous wording in policy and baseless personal desire to override goodwill and reason. The logical solution for the latter two pages would have been to honor the deletion request and simply recreate them with a new author, balanced and done as admin and other users seem to desire. Instead, both pages have been altered against authorial intent (which goes against the spirit and letter of the editing policy), and are being argued over and defended as if a little goblin has tried to steal gold from a dragon's hoard.<br />
:3) I'm concerned that it's possible for a user, regardless of rank or status, to swoop in when an article has been requested for deletion - not abandoned or purposefully put up for adoption - and begin editing it and cutting it up in an attempt to become a significant contributor to block the deletion request. It comes off as either petty or as a coordinated behind-the-scenes effort to hold a page hostage, and it's positively abhorrent that it's allowed or possible at all. In such a case where users are invested in such content, the logical solution, again, would have been to simply delete the page and start anew with a new author and a more collaborative effort based on the work of the previous author. Inspired works like that are created all the time, after all, and the license this wiki uses gives it that kind of wiggle room. (As an added note, there is no point during account creation until preparing to hit the "save changes" button where the license is presented. Even then, it is a tiny footnote, practically an after-thought, and nowhere is a user required to agree to the license in order to sign up or edit anonymously. Based on existing court cases involving places like Wikipedia, and precedents set, that puts this wiki on very thin legal ice.)<br />
:4) Finally, I would like to ask that there be an addition of some kind of definition for "significant" contributions and the like. If a page is comprised of the edits from the author to the tune of tens of thousands of bytes, and other community members have only fixed some grammar or changed a number or two, adding up to bytes numbering in the tens to low hundreds, I hardly see how that's grounds for calling them primary contributors on par with the author. Instead, it would make perfect sense if other users had helped define the page's flavor text, such as adding history to a race when the author had none, or adding new features or traits, etc. If such things were discussed in the talk page and the additions were made by the author, but the changes were discussed by multiple users and it was just the author who happened to be the one to update the page, that, too, would make sense to call a collaborative effort. The latter two pages I've linked do not fall under those cases - or didn't until this morning, which I've previously addressed.<br />
:I'm a creator here as well, just like Varkarrus. The volume of my created pages pales in comparison, but the fact remains that these rules affect me as well. As of yet, I haven't added anything to the wiki that either isn't already copyrighted material (submitted under Fair Use, of course), or that I'm extremely attached to as an original creation. That is not the case for Varkarrus, as I understand it. This wiki ended up being a great platform for organizing, editing, and publicizing original works, as well as those inspired by Wizards of the Coast content or folklore. The fact that such works are effectively being held down for no other reason than not wanting to let them go, or not wanting to do the work to recreate them in spiritual successor pages, baffles me to no end, and stifles any desire I had to become a part of this community and work with others to create collaborative and original content on the platform.<br />
:The behavior I've seen jump out of nowhere, which I am only invested in because I was invested in the content of pages that were requested to be deleted, has spiraled into discussions that are going nowhere, and reprehensible behavior on all sides. I know a lot of people can't believe someone would put this much effort into something solely for a thankless task for the sake of someone else, so I cite that I'm a creator with self-interest in the precedents set in this matter to ease such people's suspicions. I doubt that will be enough. <br />
:I've provided as much context and as many arguments as I can think of at the moment, but the fact is that I am mentally and emotionally fried after trying to fight this. I've been constantly angry for almost 48 hours, at what I see as great injustice at the hands of people in power who don't appear to care about the effect their actions are having on others, and it's not healthy for me. Since being objective and logical clearly isn't the only welcome talk on this wiki given the actions of other users recently, I feel like that is also important context. I can only hope that my tone in this message hasn't come across as angry; I'm tired, sad, exasperated, and concerned, but this is the only thing I can think to do to try and pull the discussion to one relevant location and try to talk about it as calmly and openly as possible. As the entire thing hinges on deletion requests and policy, this seemed to be the best place for it.<br />
:Please, I hope we can have a discussion about this and be rational. I want to see goodwill shown, not contempt or frustration, on my part or anyone else's. I just want this to end so I can stop talking about it, stop watching all these pages, and finally step away. It's just not in me to let it go until it's been resolved, and I can't consider something resolved if either or both parties simply square their shoulders, plant their feet, and refuse to change their minds or accept that they might be wrong about something. If I've misunderstood policy, or misinterpreted actions of other users - if I'm demonstrably wrong, I want to know so I can move on. I'd like to think everyone else here is the same. I look forward to working with you all in this matter. {{Unsigned|Max7238}}<br />
<br />
::In light of recent events, I agree that there should be added a better definition for "significant contribution" as it relates to this policy. I've already seen several users (including at least one admin) deliberately abuse this wording for what was obviously not the intent. I would seek to not let that happen again.<br />
::That said, I fear consensus on what constitutes a significant contribution would be difficult to reach. Even if consensus was reached, chances to me seem high that would be ignored by two or more admins. Even so, at the very least, I would have assumed most of us would agree that "significant contributions" do not include (1) any number of edits deliberately marked as a minor edit or (2) any amount of formatting/spellchecking that doesn't actually change the game effects or story elements of the content. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 15:52, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really wish I had more time but before it’s too late I wanted to say thanks for posting somewhere that brings it all together. I also cannot disagree with Guy. For the most part Max either but not here to argue Max. I also want to point out the shame of Vark’s work being unrecognized except for half a dozen pieces until Vark decided enough was enough and wanted to pull their Vark. Now it’s like a mad dash to edit each page. Where the gosh darn bleeping bleeping bleep was everyone the entire time she’s been a user in this wiki and only got feedback if it I was a race (because CL touches them all) or a FAN? I am flabbergasted by the behavior. It really makes it hard to believe the wiki deletion is being used in good faith by the wiki itself. Any how, only a couple hours a day of free WiFi to even log on for this. Cheers! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 20:42, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have two points to make. Firstly, we are also forgetting that this is supposed to be a ''speedy'' deletion. If we make it a 2 week thing, it leaves it open for someone to come in and make a big edit, nullifying the deletion rationale. If the page qualifies, it needs to be deleted ''straight away''. <br />
::::Secondly, the G7 proposal has to be made in good faith. Here are examples of G7 rationales (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion]): <br />
::::*"You're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content"<br />
::::*"you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with."<br />
::::*"you just screwed up and created a page with a title like User:User:Example"<br />
::::To this I also add:<br />
::::*You're making a page and learn that the site's license isn't appropriate for you (e.g. you wish to retain copyright).<br />
::::Asking for your page to be deleted out of spite because you've had some falling out with another user is ''not'' in good faith and is not a G7 rationale.<br />
::::Finally, I will add that it's Green Dragon's site and he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't deleted, regardless of guidelines. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's "supposed to be a speedy deletion"? According to our policy as currently written, "request of sole significant contributor" is the 2-week thing, [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help:Deletion_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=1092641 or as GamerAim put it, "the CfD process."]<br />
:::::Marasmusine, you are referencing Wikipedia's criteria again. This policy page itself was written so we don't rely on Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia's policy is designed for an encyclopedia of undisputed facts, not for original creative writing. We don't have G7. We have our own deletion policy, which was written and readjusted (and re-re-adjusted) over the course of months by several prominent users. <s>It would be nice if the page wasn't locked so I could correct some of the minor problems introduced through all these readjustments but that's beside the point.</s> If sole-significant should in fact be speedy deletion instead of the 2-week thing, then this policy should be edited to portray that instead of contradicting it.<br />
:::::If "good faith" is a requirement for "request of sole significant contributor," then that should be added to our policy as well. I am not sure if I agree with that personally. 'Good faith' seems extremely ambiguous when it comes to original creations, and too much ambiguity seems like it's part of the problem right now. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::First and foremost, if Green Dragon is the "ultimate arbiter" of what is done, regardless of any policy whatsoever, then why is there policy written at all? If it's a space for ''anyone'' to just do whatever they want, I'm ''pretty'' sure that should just be explicitly stated, and done so upon account creation or trying to edit the wiki at all. I'm also ''positive'' that I'll never create another page on this wiki, and that I'm about done editing anything but talk pages.<br />
::::::Second, can someone please direct the rest of admin to this page, so we can hear from them? ConcealedWife is having a field day with one of the pages, now, too. I could understand a user, or an IP, doing something like this, but if I'm expected to believe that what amounts to the staff of the wiki are allowed to conduct themselves in this way and not have it raise every red flag in the book, it would go a long way in convincing me that policy is indeed moot, and that this is simply Green Dragon's domain to do with as he sees fit... Including appoint friends to do as they see fit, so long as the only toes they step on don't belong to him.<br />
::::::Third, I was told to sit by and wait, and only respond if everyone else did first, but this is all just too much to watch. BigShot made an excellent point; you can just look at the history of some of these pages and plainly see that until Varkarrus wanted them gone, almost no one cared. Now there's uproar among a very small crowd to "save the pages?" Or do what, exactly? Why else would people, especially administration, suddenly pop out of the woodwork to start mass edits of a page that one of the users they're supposed to help protect requested to be deleted? After the behavior in the Discord, which I was told repeatedly is unofficial, despite being created and run by the same people, under the same name as this website, where I saw incredible amounts of contempt and disrespect being thrown around, seeing this illustrates perfectly that this wiki is not the environment to remain in if one is a creator in any capacity. Unfortunately, I can't request that my own pages be deleted, because then I'd receive the same treatment!<br />
::::::Finally, it's too late to rewrite policy for this. I'm sure it will only change after the fact, if it does at all. As written, right now, it can easily be interpreted to not only ''allow'' this behavior, but encourage it. And, based on the behavior I'm seeing, that makes a select group of people very happy to swing it like a cudgel at anyone in the way of them doing as they please. It's impossible to have a discussion about any of this, any of what's going on, and not sound disrespectful or "uncivil," but I can promise you I'm doing my best while being more angry and frustrated than I've been in months - or years. As policy stands, and as long as the aforementioned actions continue, I can think nothing else of this entire site but "get out as soon as possible."<br />
::::::When this is all over, regardless of the conclusion, you'll never see me active on this wiki again. I'm sure that will ''also'' make some people very happy - others maybe not - but I'm not even going to go as far as requesting my works be deleted for any reason. My pages here are either already copyrighted material, submitted under fair use, or cool ideas I had that I wanted to show to friends and thought the public might like. I'm nobody on this wiki, so I guess being blown off shouldn't surprise me. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 08:40, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Then this shows why "user requests deletion" ''should'' be a speedy criteria per how Wikipedia handles it. It either meets the uncontroversial criteria for deletion, or it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be deleted (as the author has published it under the free document license). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I've moved our replies to [[#Speedy deletion for author requests]], so as not to detract from the other points brought up by Max7238. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have a policy, that puts our work behind our actions. Saying that an admin really cares about a page so much as to circumvent policy is not what is happening. As admins we should not blindly trust users, so going through a list of pages to see if they match our deletion policy is not only impartial, it's also necessary. It's apparent that you have very little experience in situations like this, and your wish to never submit anything to D&D Wiki only makes me question your expertise more, and if you are really the right person to get ideas from. It's beneficial for us to work with users who have hurdled over even the toughest of situations, and not users without experience but some ideas. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Let me start by saying that I answered in the section below first. With that out of the way, I next need to say that I call em as I see em, and actions speak a lot louder than words. I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality. That quality did not always come from collaborative work. I already cited the relevant pages where, obviously, it became a collaboration and those pages should remain. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of her created pages are, or were, being edited like mad in what seemed to be clear cases of bad faith. One user had simply not seen the discussion and started edits, and I've already cleared that up in your absence. Another user completely threw out authorial intent, and went so far as to state in edit messages that they would pretty much completely rewrite a page, which had little purpose other than ousting the original author as the SSC.<br />
::::::::::I ''don't'' want to submit here anymore. Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat ''maybe'' twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::::::::::You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to. I'm a user of the wiki. I've been lurking for the better part of two years. I've got a degree in law, I specifically went out of my way to study digital law, cyber security, social inequality, and sociology (down to specifics like globalization) for my electives. I'm not here for some faceless entity over the internet to question who and what I am, because the fact is that it doesn't change the argument. It doesn't change that policy as written is flawed and rife with opportunity for abuse - abuse that has been occurring these past few days. If that policy does not change, then no, I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun. There's no point in getting invested in anything I post on this wiki that isn't being submitted under Fair Use, because the instant it's here, based on your actions and the actions of other admin, it's yours now. Even following the spirit of policy rather than the letter, only the Maralith and Lich pages should remain. That we're having this discussion at ''all'' should be plenty of evidence that there's a problem. It wouldn't go on this long if there wasn't!<br />
::::::::::It's beneficial for you to work with people who give a care. It's beneficial for a public resource like this to harness the potential of those who pass through it. It's beneficial for this wiki to welcome creativity and ''respect'' it. That's not being done right now. I care too much about everything, and I know that. I have a great deal of potential to ''help'' you (and you all, because written English is weird), and I want to. And creativity is ''not'' being welcomed or respected as long as it's within the realm of possibility for this discussion to occur. You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website." As it stands, it's now plain to see that that license is being abused to allow the hoarding of information under a single banner without regard for the creator's wishes. It's just there so you avoid being sued in as many situations as possible, and to be cited when you don't want to let a page go - that's what the actions are stating, loud and clear.<br />
::::::::::Please stay on topic, as personal attacks are a fallacy and have no place in intellectual debate. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:51, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I have already gone through all these deletion requests. Please give some examples of what you want, because this work has already been done by me.<br />
:::::::::::I have quoted our editing policy verbatim, bit I guess you didn't read it? Are works submitted to D&D Wiki to be edited mercilessly and copied at will? <br />
:::::::::::This is the first time I have had any contact with your user. Your contributions speak for your experience. It's not an insult, it's just as simple as looking through your user contributions.<br />
:::::::::::If you just want to submit your ''crap'' here then, frankly, I don't want anything to do with any policy that you would ''crap out''.<br />
:::::::::::Please supply references to your claims, and if you are doing research please don't take quotes from {{user|Marasmusine}} out of context. I already stated which users I prefer to work with. I don't think it's too hard for you to lay out some of this sweat so that we can get to the core of what everyone wants.<br />
:::::::::::And anyone who could get sued is the user who re-licenses an already oublished work. Please read and quote the GNU FDL (and start go deeper into all the discussions that have already answered this question). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::: *''"Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor."''<br />
::::::::::::There's also the matter of the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Light_Beam_(5e_Spell) Light Beam] page being reverted, despite the author being the SSC.<br />
::::::::::: *''"This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this."''<br />
::::::::::::I wasn't aware that what pretty much amounts to an informal blurb there was part of policy. Even if it is, it does not say you agree to using the license, nor does it say you lose the copyright to the work. It says "your writing" which could be anything from your flavor to whatever else, is vague and reminiscent of government policy passed with the express purpose of giving a government too much power over something.<br />
::::::::::: *''"...assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about."''<br />
::::::::::::Having just received a warning, from you, no less, only to return to this page and see that you are also engaging in such behavior: taunting or baiting me, which is a matter of interpretation (I interpreted your statement about experience to be such, but I can't warn you for it), and quoting users out of context, such as using my colloquial usage of "crap" to insult my propositions and position on this debate.<br />
::::::::::::If I was quoting Mara, especially out of context, I apologize. It wasn't my intention, and if I did, I didn't realize. Your preference is all well and good, but again, it has no bearing on the debate at hand. I've already provided sources in the original post for this particular section of the debate (sorry I neglected to create a new section, but I was also so flustered that I didn't even sign the original post). If you're looking for specific demands, it would be, to restate for the umpteenth time on this page alone, to have a clearer definition of terms used in order to close loopholes that may be abused by users acting to keep a creator from exercising their rights; and, to reinstate the deletion requests, and honor said requests, of Varkarrus where they were valid to begin with, such as, again, [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages and the aforementioned Light Beam page. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have already responded on these talk pages. Your reasons are wrong, but you are still trying to make them your argument here?<br />
:Again, read the GNU FDL, look at previous discussions, and you must also understand that IP addresses use the same terminology as if you had created an account.<br />
:You have less than 500 edits, and you are trying to implement a far reaching policy based on how you perceive the situation? Again, I would expect to be working with a more experienced user here, probably no less than 3000 edits.<br />
:You said ''"... I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun."'' so how is your work on this policy not 'throwaway crap'? It's not a misquote, it's your logic, actions, and words exactly.<br />
:Maybe it's because you have less than 500 edits, but it's not a debate to win and lose. Have you even read [[w:Wikipedia:Consensus]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Can you explain why they're wrong, since you want to state that so plainly? I think this is simply a matter of us having different definitions of what a "major contribution" is... Which is sort of the point of this entire discussion, isn't it?<br />
::I have, I have, I do.<br />
::Irrelevant, again. Someone with no edits could just as easily come in and read all this and have the conversation as someone with a million. The difference is whether they have the foresight to understand what the changes will do, and if I haven't demonstrated that yet, I'd be glad to.<br />
::Yes, that is what I said. It's good thing I'm not the one able to edit deletion policy, then, isn't it? Sarcasm aside, you know full well it isn't, you're just continuing to mischaracterize my statement and use it to try and bait me, which, again, no one can warn you for, so you're free to violate your own behavioral policy as you wish. If you find the time, please, look at the pages I've created. Maybe they aren't balanced correctly, which I readily admit, but that's why I was posting them and requesting review - but they aren't just the kind of thing someone could come up with off the top of their heads, throw on the wiki, and walk away thinking they were the greatest creator ever. None of my pages are nominated for FA or QA, and I wouldn't nominate myself unless I felt I deserved it, and I don't. I have a long way to go to be as good as the rest of those articles.<br />
::I hadn't no, but now I have, thank you. As it happens, there's more in there to support me, so I appreciate it. Based on everything I'm seeing right now, actually, you seem to be the only one who ''doesn't'' agree at this point. I'd like to continue going about convincing you, but you don't seem very receptive to conversation for some reason. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 23:45, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Speedy deletion for author requests==<br />
In regards to speedy deletion, I'm not sure I follow.<br/><br />
Several times now user-requested-deletion has been '''very''' controversial. Once when I was an admin, I deleted a page that had three reasons for deletion&mdash;including the user requesting deletion in good faith&mdash;but not only was that deletion overturned by another admin, it seemingly caused extreme ire towards me from that admin. Especially with the current vagueness of "significant contribution," the 14 day period allows there to be discussion if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then I don't really see the problem with keeping it for 14 days, especially if it can prevent unintended controversy and ire.<br/><br />
Having the 14 day grace period serves another purpose: it lets anyone who wants to save the content do so. I know {{User|Quincy}} has done so with several deleted pages, and I don't see a strong enough reason not to let that happen, either.<br/><br />
If my own perspective and judgement here fails to convince, Green Dragon commented on this very page back in October, as follows. "It has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page." - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:05, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:"Saving" content by making edits is a problem. When I made edits at [[:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)]] this was seen as a bad-faith attempt to negate the author's request. It is also a problem if an author wishes to withdraw their work because they misunderstood the license and wish to retain their copyright. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I should have been more clear. When I wrote "saving" content, I meant either (1) copying it into a text file for personal use, or (2) creating a copy in one's userspace with the author's permission. I agree that editing a page to negate deletion request is likely to be problematic. That is best discouraged, but in light of my preceding comments, I don't believe speedy deletion is the best way to discourage that. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I agree that there simply shouldn't be speedy deletion unless the page was unfinished and only had one contributor: the author. Other people may be invested in a page even if the author was unaware (someone could have it in their watch-list, using it for a character already, and you get no notification of the "follow"). I would argue that pages should be soft-locked to some extent while the discussion proceeds. It allows everyone, not just administration and/or the author to voice their take on things, consolidate context, save the contents of the page as a back-up or for Fair Use recreation, etc, etc. Between that and actually defining "primary contributor" or "major contribution" I think this page would improve vastly. If you lock the page, allow the discussion to proceed, investigate the history and talk page, and it can be determined using those new definitions that the author was, in fact, the primary contributor or the ''only'' contributor, it doesn't make sense for there to be extensive discussion. As I said, and as others have said long before me, in those cases, the page can just be created anew following the license terms and copyright law. If reaction videos on YouTube can be protected, and AMVs can be protected, there's no reason that a re-imagined page on a wiki couldn't be too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:38, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::There [[:Template:Locked_Page|is precedent]] for contributors requesting a page they created to be locked, of course. That seems like it could be a good option to employ.<br />
::::I'm unsure about the correlation between YouTube videos and D&D Wiki content. Despite that, I believe it would be fair to assume that an author's deletion request can also be assumed to be a request for page protection. If we keep the 14 day grace period, then I would advocate for including into our policy. Maybe something like this could replace what is currently under [[Help:Deletion_Policy#Request_of_sole_significant_contributor|request of sole significant contributor]]?<br />
{{quote|The sole significant contributor ("SSC") of a page can request its deletion using the [[#Proposed Deletion|deletion proposal]] process. For the purpose of this criteria, the SSC retains this privilege until another user makes a significant contribution to the page. As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way. Any edit(s) deliberately marked as a minor edit is never considered a significant contribution.<br />
<br />
<s>If the SSC informally requests deletion, another user can propose deletion on their behalf.</s><br />
<br />
If when the SSC requests deletion the page meets other criteria for [[#Speedy Deletion|Speedy Deletion]], an admin may speedily delete it, but otherwise the 14-day period normally afforded for [[#Proposed Deletion|Proposed Deletion]] should be retained.<br />
<br />
During the 14-day period, an admin may exercise the option to protect or "lock" the page from further edits, so as to not stir up controversy regarding content that may soon be deleted. Regardless of protection, the corresponding talk page should be used for any warranted discussion or dissent instead of the content page itself, as with all deletion proposals.<br />
<br />
As content contributed to D&D Wiki is released under the [[Help:Legal|GNU Free Documentation License 1.3]], there is no inherent or special protection afforded to a page's content even if the SSC requests deletion. Nonetheless, it is courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of this deleted content regardless of why the SSC requested deletion.}}<br />
<br />
::::It's more complex than would be ideal, but this is the most succinct way I've found to address all points that have been brought up regarding this criteria. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:11, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: <s>I have never understood why “author’s request” deletions are forced to go through the fortnight grace period and previous attempts to get {{user|Green Dragon}} to explain have been futile. I’m completely fine with having “author request” be a valid criterion for speedy deletion. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:14, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</s><br />
::::::Actually, it seems like exactly what the scenario calls for. Complex or not, it needs to be written clearly and cover as many cases as possible, which I believe your draft here does. If this had existed prior to the current controversy, it would have been avoided entirely, I think. The 14 days was addressed earlier, and I see no reason for that part to change; it gives everyone, even the SSC, time to back-up the page, and time for others to discuss its removal. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Geodude, I feel you are implying there is no reason why. Let me be more straightforward with the reasons I provided.<br />
:::::::*14 days enables anyone actively using the content to download it without screwing over their character/campaign. Let's not forget that's the primary purpose of content: to actually be used. It's entirely possible someone has a tarrasqin character they are using in a monthly or biweekly campaign; deleting their race without warning not only screws them, but discourages people from actually using our site for its intended purpose.<br />
:::::::*14 days affords discussion of any matter an admin may not have considered with speedy deletion. E.g., the content is integral to a campaign setting or a ruleset, or there are dissenting but valid opinions on how "significant" seemingly insignificant contributions are, among other possibilities.<br />
:::::::Do you believe these reasons are not significant enough? - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You are correct, Guy; I was under the impression that the only reason was because the owner said so. Now that you’ve demonstrated that there ''are'' valid reasons, I’ve retracted my previous comment, and support your proposed changes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:37, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing another user other than the SSC to PfD a page. This is too vague, and it puts the ultimate responsibility in a place where I don't want it to be.<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing these pages to be speedily deleted. I don't like the idea of making admins go through the added stress and workload of checking histories, user contributions, reasons, etc etc in such a short time. As {{user|Marasmusine}} so well pointed out, these PfDs are not in good faith, so why pile all these tasks onto the people doing the work?<br />
:::::::::Why should the pages be locked? Our contributions specifically state "''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.''" So this seems to just be the wish of some user (without the experience) getting implemented. I don't see this as at all necessary, we have histories and a user base who have their own interests and that is not to make the SSC feel alienated.<br />
:::::::::I would expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::I can't say I agree with that either. Another user could simply come along during a time when the SSC was, say, moving and had no internet, and the page would be gone when they got back.<br />
::::::::::I also can't say I agree with that being the case for ''speedy'' deletion, but checking histories and everything else mentioned ''should'' be the kind of work that goes into this. It's also unfair to say that the requests for deletion that sparked this conversation aren't in "good faith," when not only is that statement undefined, but administration has also been acting in bad faith until yesterday. Proving intent is a sticky situation to get into, and short of pulling up private Discord conversations to prove the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do to argue it. Furthermore, because the SSC to the pages in question wouldn't keep her mouth shut like I asked, she's been blocked for a week. That means she can't renew her requests, only admin like yourself can reinstate the previous request if it is found to be valid retroactively.<br />
::::::::::I will agree, and fight for the notion, that pages should be locked when requested for deletion by a user who, until that very moment, was the sole significant contributor. Regardless of interest or intent, alienation is exactly what is happening right now. This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this. The licensing blurb should be fleshed out, yes. There should be a portion of user sign-up that presents the license and requires agreement, yes. The fact is that editing a page that was requested for deletion in an effort to block the request is pretty much the definition of "in bad faith."<br />
::::::::::Finally, before I go ahead and answer your other statement above, I'll state here as well that assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:18, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The now crossed out portion is already performed when appropriate, so I suppose there isn't any benefit to point out it's a possibility.<br />
<br />
I rewrote the paragraph regarding locks to be extra clear that it's just an option an admin can choose to employ if it seems beneficial. I can't edit the policy itself anyway, so I expect if an admin copies my entry that bit can be removed anyway <br />
<br />
One would "expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out"? To be frank, I'm not a fan of how that was phrased... I'm a volunteer here, not an intern or an employee. <br />
But anyway, if it is to be expanded somehow, what should be included? The wikilink there is meant to cover anything relevant to legal issues. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Good Faith" ==<br />
<br />
I've seen, I think, some controversy around deleting articles for the unspecified personal reasons of the authors based on "good faith." I'd just like to say that I think there's so much controversy because the policy in itself is not good faith. I think that, when a user tried to have their content removed, other users - myself included - take it as an attack on D&D Wiki. After all, it's akin - in my own words - to donating something to Goodwill and then stealing it back, usually - in my experience - because the checkout girl smart-mouthed you.<br />
<br />
This is to say that I don't really fault anyone for invoking this clause, because it's in the rules, but that the clause will always incite conflict. A user who invokes it will be seen as throwing toys out the pram, whereas users who try to see the article are - in my experience - seen as acting in bad faith to undermine the deletion request. And that, I feel is the problem: improving articles is being viewed in bad faith by default. A user editing an article, especially to improve it, should ''always'' be assumed to be in good faith. But that doesn't seem to be the case, here, nor do I think it has ''ever'' been the case even before this clause was codified.<br />
<br />
Further complicating - or, perhaps, clarifying - matters is that some users (I've seen [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] name checked a few times) are preserving this content themselves on user pages. I heard an unverified rumor that Varkarrus offered to backup "her" articles as a .pdf for other users to save after deletion. What this all means - to me - is that users still want this content around. They still view it as worthwhile and valuable. Even the authors did, or else why did they initially post it here? If the authors agreed to host it here, and users still want it, keeping it around should be good faith, not deleting it.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, my analysis of the situation and the clause is that the clause is not in good faith, nor is any invocation of it in good faith. It is - in my analysis - a bad faith move, and the clause should be revoked. At the very least, there were fewer arguments about "good faith" deletions before this clause...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:To clarify, the back-up of pages created primarily by Varkarrus in the form of a .pdf upon request is substantiated by Varkarrus herself via multiple deletion requests that include such an offer.<br />
:I agree with you here, but I'm curious what your alternative will be. Defining the term? Removing the clause entirely, to be replaced with what, if anything? You're absolutely right in your analysis, and I appreciate your use of analogy, personally. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:43, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Aye, sorry if it sounded like I was doubting you. Not the case at all! My alternative is, as I say, that "the clause should be revoked."--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vark's Good Faith ==<br />
<br />
Whether or not I agree with the "good faith deletion" clause, I don't think that Vark's case is good faith and I'd prefer if we could settle this in one place.<br />
<br />
I took a break and came back right as this was happening, so maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems Vark broke some rules in Discord, got warned, had an argument with CW (making a compelling point, from what I saw) and decided to leave D&D Wiki over it, taking lots of well-made articles along with her? From where I stand, it doesn't look like good faith; it looks like Vark effectively vandalizing D&D Wiki. As I elaborated above, part of the issue is that the clause seems to be interpreted as ''assuming'' good faith. If Vark had wrote "CW is a doo-doo-head" on a dozen articles, that would probably be interpreted as bad faith vandalism, so why shouldn't this be, considering it coincides with a heated argument? In fact, CW editing "Vark's" articles was itself considered bad faith on the grounds of their disagreement.<br />
<br />
I ''could'', as an admin, make that determination myself, but, even ignoring the issues of neutrality and lack of information, I suspect it would create more drama since the admin "team" feels more like a collection of city-states that one nation right now. So if we could just consense...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:49, 9 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Addendum:''' ConcealedWife has informed me over Discord that my timeline may be wrong and that Vark did not leave over their argument. If anyone could please fill in the gaps in the interest of determining if Vark's deletions were bad faith, I'd appreciate it :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:15, 9 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:As I understand it, based on my conversations with Varkarrus over the past, jeez, two weeks or so?, it had nothing to do with any one user in particular. You can also look at her talk page for some context, but this is the bottom line... <br />
:She's grown tired of the environment here where, I will repeat, there seems to be a lot of bias for and against certain users. As an example, there is [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Earth_Giant_(5e_Race) this] featured race, which is exceedingly strong, and yet it is FA nonetheless. The balance appears to be assumed taken care of by RP drawbacks. But Varkarrus' own Tarrasqin page was hotly debated, then basically rejected as Large size, reduced to Medium, and is still hotly opposed for breaking convention.<br />
:Further, on a personal level, Varkarrus holds strong beliefs and worldviews that, I won't contest, had no place being aired or debated on the Discord or here - based on the rules of D&DW. Even though they shouldn't be talked about, they were, and it created a realization that some worldviews just weren't going to mix because either or both parties wouldn't change their minds. Rather than remain in an environment hazardous to her mental health, Varkarrus decided to leave. As someone with my own issues, I can empathize, as some days even the slightest argument can ruin any motivation I might have to be creative or, at worst, trap me in bed and make me miss a day of work.<br />
:As it happens, at the time of the requests for deletion, good or bad faith isn't a factor for consideration. You can argue both ways. Either you can think that Varkarrus is angry and wants to tear the wallpaper off the office before she resigns... Or you can think she wants to take back the expensive A/C unit she got for the office and maintained by herself, with others only making slight temperature adjustments now and again. In the cases of pages Varkarrus created but did not maintain alone, once again, such as Marilith and Lich, it's completely understandable that they remain. In the case of pages such as her Twinmind class, Dullahan Variant, and Tarrasqin, however, there's no reason to hang on to them besides a personal bitterness toward letting them go. There are dozens of examples for both sides.<br />
:Ultimately, in my opinion, Varkarrus is neither acting in good or bad faith. The situation is emotionally charged from many sources, not just Varkarrus, and regretable words and decisions have arisen from the situation from said sources, myself included. If you have an understanding heart, you (general you, not you you) should be able to recognize this and see past it to the real issue at hand: under current policy, most of Varkarrus' requests should be honored, and policy needs to be rewritten for better definition and less room for abuse (by admin or users). --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:30, 9 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I won't deny that the environment here is toxic. I won't deny that there is favoritism, nepotism or too much cliqueyness. I've argued before that Vark's content is fine. I even think that Vark is right to share some of her political views if other people have started a conversation involving politics. Her politics are generally fine by me.<br />
::But, and I know people are gonna hate that I bring this up, when ''I'' left in part due to the hostility (and it did feel hostile to me) that Vark helped cultivate, I didn't delete all my contributions. When SgtLion was chased away by the toxic environment here, he didn't have his bot undo every contribution it ever made. Vark - who once tried to get my adminship privileges revoked because I gave her a minor warning on Discord - tried to "tear the wallpaper off the office." I only mention this to provide context for Vark's history of seeking retribution for perceived sleights against her, and to contrast it against how people who claim to have been negatively affected by her left D&D Wiki.<br />
::Vark has expressed a mentality, quite publicly, that would support acting in bad faith. This is not about her character, but about her actions and how she has demonstrably conducted herself. She was, within the past month, warned and even banned on D&D Wiki. Vark offered to share her creations elsewhere, which means it's just D&D Wiki she ''suddenly'' has a problem with. I, personally, do not consider it "good faith" to want your content removed from D&D Wiki just because you disagree with the politics of some users, after editing here for years and contributing to the community that you, Max, have admitted you feel is flawed.<br />
::I think I've said everything I have to say about Vark's motives being bad faith. My position stands, but I respect your own interpretation and appreciate the effort you've made to engage in this discussion <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:24, 9 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blue_Dragon&diff=1182762User talk:Blue Dragon2019-06-09T16:17:43Z<p>GamerAim: /* Free D&D Wiki Email */ Could we get a link to the email on the sidebar?</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 159)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 160 &ndash; 185)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 186 &ndash; 227)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 228 &ndash; 270)<br />
}}<br />
==how to register==<br />
I've read all the FAQs but none of them actually tell you where to go to register, and I can't find a link anywhere on the site<br />
:Account creation has been temporarily disabled due to excessive spam. Check back in a few days. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 10:54, 22 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
::It should be working now. Please let me know if you have any problems registering. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 13:30, 23 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::I had a bug in the system, and it was not working. It should be working as of today. Please try again and let me know if you cannot register an account. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 11:08, 29 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Can't register==<br />
Hey i have just recently tried to register but like the last person the puzzle doesnt make any sense as the question is a bunch of letters and numbers mixed, then the answer just comes up with numbers. {{unsigned|199.247.249.187}}<br />
<br />
:The puzzle is for your computer to solve, not you. I'm not exactly sure ''what'' the puzzle does, but all ''you'' need to do is click the button that says "Begin Puzzle Search." I hope this helps. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 17:44, 24 February 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Free D&D Wiki Email ==<br />
<br />
Hey, BD, I know it's been over 11 years, but is that offer still running for a free @dandwiki.com email address?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:I am interested in this as well. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 16:27, 5 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::It is! I'll try to get something setup this weekend and talk to GD about it. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 07:10, 6 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:::Hi BD, any updates on this? — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 16:31, 6 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::: I'd also be interested in this. Thanks. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 11:34, 22 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::Hi BD, any updates on this? — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 22:38, 14 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::Hi BD, any updates on this? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:47, 7 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::Thanks for pestering me about this, sorry it has been dropped low on my todo list. I'll really try to get to it soon. Stayed tuned! Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 16:04, 7 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Hi everyone, email should be setup now! Feel free to check it out at [[Special:DDMailManagement]]. If we want to put a link to login to email, it will be [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:DDMailManagement?a=a Special:DDMailManagement?a=a]. Please try it out and let me know if there are any issues. I still haven't put a spam system yet. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 17:30, 22 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::::Hi everyone, any feedback? Are people interested in me enabling forwarding (I built support for it, but want to see if I can somehow route forwarded emails differently so if someone spams an account we don't get flagged for forwarding the spam). &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 06:00, 17 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Sorry I forgot to reply! Very busy. The webmail seems to be working fine on my end; much appreciated! I do not have any opinion on forwarding, as I would not likely use it, sorry. Still nice having this snazzy new D&D Wiki email :) Again, thank you so much, and I hope all is well for you <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:24, 17 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I also failed to mention that I've tried this feature and am impressed and contented. I would personally be interested in enabled forwarding, so I don't have to watch yet another email account, but whatevs is easy~ I should mention I've heard from a whole bunch of users who are impressed so, thanks, BD <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 07:28, 17 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Hey, the email not working for anyone else? I keep getting a "can't get message list" error. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:38, 8 November 2018 (MST)<br />
:Thanks for pointing this out. It should be fixed now. Please let me know if there are still problems. Thanks! &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 12:04, 8 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
Could we get a link to the email on the sidebar?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:17, 9 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Recaptcha not working ==<br />
<br />
The recaptcha isn't working properly and I cannot create an account. {{unsigned|2601:245:8000:865b:51ce:811f:1ec0:fe16}}<br />
:It will work until the end of this month; you just have to "refresh" it to get rid of the warning (click the "request new <abbr title="completely automated public Turing test (to tell computers and humans apart)">CAPTCHA</abbr>" button). [[User:Arlo James Barnes|Arlo James Barnes]] ([[User talk:Arlo James Barnes|talk]]) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Lock Request ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I was hoping to have a certain page locked because I believe it's done. Some think the AC doesn't make sense, but I feel that because it's a legendary item, and AC is is the main point of the armor in my opinion. It's titled Grand Raven Armor, and it's based off the Grand King Armor. {{unsigned|Gideonapathetic}}<br />
:Hi Gideonapathetic; BD generally handles the technical side of the wiki nowadays; you might be better off asking another admin (linking to the page you want locked would also be helpful). — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 23:37, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Thanks for the response Geodude671, that's right. Please ask another admin! &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 08:39, 17 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Not Receiving Verification Email ==<br />
<br />
You know I hate to bother you, BD, but I tried changing my D&D Wiki email address and I'm not getting the verification email. I tried having it resent, but it's been over a day and I still haven't gotten it. I checked that I put the correct email and checked my spam folder and all. Any chance you know what's going on and how to fix it? Thanks in advance, regardless <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:43, 25 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Hi GamerAim, thank you for bringing this to my attention! It appears that our email sending system has been put on a blacklist by Microsoft. I filled out a form for them to review that decision and take us off the blacklist. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 08:54, 25 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It worked! Thanks :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:38, 27 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Your reCAPTCHA machine broke. ==<br />
<br />
Sorry for my terrible joke, but while trying to make an account I'm getting a "V1 (version 1) SHUTDOWN ON 2018-3-31 Direct site owners to g.co/recaptcha/upgrade<br />
With this I can't sign up, Even if I let my computer solve the puzzle under it. Thank you in advance as you solve this.<br />
-Stillnextdoor or robertwhateve@gmail.com<br />
:Hi, thanks for reporting this. I have moved to the new ReCaptcha system, but haven't yet included our custom PoW puzzle. At least new account creation should be possible now. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 06:39, 7 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I'm looking for some help. ==<br />
<br />
I don't know how these talk pages work but if I check the stay logged in box it will log me out anyway as soon as I close the browser. Is it supposed to do that? Or is something wrong with it or with my pc? Like I can log in so there isn't really a problem, I just figured I'd ask an admin.<br />
<br />
thanks in advance<br />
<br />
-artsy<br />
<br />
Double-check that your browser has cookies enabled and see if that fixes your issue. If that doesn't work see [[User talk:Blue Dragon/Archive 7#Kydo]] and see if that helps. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 22:22, 6 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Middle Finger of Vecna Unauthorized Content ==<br />
<br />
To whom it may concern,<br />
<br />
I'm the creator and editor of Mage Hand Press and Middle Finger of Vecna, and it has come to my attention that some of our content has been used on your site without permission. This [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dvati_(5e_Race) dvati] race gives attribution, but did not gain permission to adapt our material or copy any descriptive text. Thankfully, this is the first (and only) issue that's come to my attention.<br />
<br />
Thank you for your time,<br />
Mike, The Finger of Vecna {{unsigned|2600:1700:f4e0:a70:fd66:10d9:c230:e066}}<br />
<br />
:It's a shame to delete the nice work done on it, but ah well. I've deleted the page, and informed the user who copied the class and made the changes. Do let us know if it happens again. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 03:33, 12 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Spambots and Mobile friendliness ==<br />
<br />
Heyo BD, got a twofer today. We've been having another [[Special:BlockList|upsurge of spambots lately]], and you're usually the guy who knows the sneak hit fix to those issues - Any ideas? As for point two - I noticed earlier that dandwiki doesn't seem to be mobile friendly (and, in my experience, MediaWikis are mobile friendly by default); Is this just me, or is the custom theme causin' it, or what? Bof~ --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 17:43, 17 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The spam getting really tiring now. Can we temporarily prevent new accounts being made? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:55, 19 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. I temporarily disabled new account creation until I can get my old spam prevention system migrated to the new recaptcha library. With respect to the mobile friendliness, it is indeed the custom theme. It seems about time to move to a new theme and a modern version of MediaWiki. If there are any takers for making a new vector-based MW theme, that could really help. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:12, 19 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I just want to note that I use the wiki on mobile all the time and never noticed an issue with the site being particularly mobile unfriendly. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 10:33, 19 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, a wikipedia-esque mobile friendliness is what I'm talking about, not having to faff about panning and zooming and text line width adjusting to screen size, and the whole lot. Makes it a lot easier to jump through and read articles and whatevs, especially on smaller screens. Cheers for getting to the spam, BD. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::As a frequent mobile user, this would be most appreciated! [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 11:28, 27 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I will need to try it a little more, but it seems like {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s custom skin no longer has the mobile problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:29, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Thanks for trying out my skin GD. There are a few things(as seen on the skin's talk page) that I'd like to fix up still before I'm happy with it. As for the mobile issue, I see the issue with the personal nav at the top right being ignored and awkwardly spaced. My skin also seems to displace the wiki logo to the right. I'll keep this stuff in mind next time I'm poking with it this week. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 16:50, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Prenamespace, otherwise invalid pages ==<br />
<br />
Hey again, BD - I'm really not trying to bother you, honestly. Just a lil' one, that again only ye with backend might be able to sort for me. My bot was going through redirects and encountered an unexpected page error, the one in question being [[OGC:necromancy_Spells]]. Not [[OGC:Necromancy Spells]] with the capital N, but lower case n.<br />
<br />
Unsuprisingly, not being a redirect at all, this confuses my bot greatly. My theory goes that OGC:necromancy_Spells was created before OGC was made a namespace, and so the page still hides in the SQL, but is inaccessible now because the first letter of page names is automatically interpreted to be a capital letter and we can only see OGC:Necromancy_Spells. Anyway, not at all an urgent issue, but could you fix this, when you got a moment? --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 05:49, 27 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I have now sorted this by deleting the page straight from the SQL database, by mine own hand. <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 10:30, 16 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Wonderful, thank you!! &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 11:36, 16 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Why it no let me save i cant see the capthca or whatever ==<br />
<br />
The captcha isn't working. I'm trying to make a new class but it wont work because captcha is being rude and not showing the word.<br />
If it works for anyone else can you pls make this a class this is what I have so far. <code>''class snipped''</code> -{{unsigned|2601:152:4400:962a:9c70:9b02:bb55:d784}}<br />
:I see you've managed to make an account and create the article. Do say if have any further issues. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:08, 8 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Lost Child ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I was wondering if there was any way to get in touch with the person who created this race or if there is a way to get access to the information that is no longer displayed. While I understand that at least one person was unhappy with the information on it, I am mid campaign and was using that race with the approval of my DM. I specifically was using the page on this website and did not copy the information down anywhere else. I was really enjoying this race and would not like to have to kill it off and make a whole new character.{{unsigned|Gomenesigh}}<br />
:Hi, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're referring to the page [[Lost Child (5e Race)]], the page still exists and you can probably find the information you're looking for by trawling through that page's history (use the "history" tab at the top of the page). Otherwise, I'm not really sure how to help you. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 01:34, 23 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I saw on another page that an admin offered to put a page onto someone's personal user page. Can that be done for this race? For the most recent information that was public before it was deemed incomplete. I'm really not going to spend hours going through someone else's content because there is no efficient notification system for edits like this. Things have already been changed on the page and as I already said, I am in the middle of a campaign.{{unsigned|Gomenesigh}}<br />
:::As Geodude671 said, the page ''has not been deleted'', and currently is not proposed for deletion. You can find an entire history of the page [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Lost_Child_(5e_Race)&action=history here], so if something has changed, find the revision nearest the date you used it. I would note that no content of the page has changed for over six months. --[[Special:Contributions/81.154.171.247|81.154.171.247]] 03:52, 23 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't create a deity ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I'm trying to create a new greater god but it won't let me, even though I've done many puzzles and captcha's, it won't save or show up on the deity list, it's probably because I'm not allowed to create an account for this website until im older. But I still want to create this deity.<br />
Sorry if it's too much trouble for you, and if I'm just being ignorant and not reading the rules correctly.<br />
:Could you please go into more detail about the issues you are running into? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:58, 28 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I can type in the basic information about the god, hit the save page button and it's will bring up the page with the two puzzles that I'm supposed to solve, when I've done the CAPTCHA puzzle AND the code puzzle my phone needs to solve, nothing happens. In case this was supposed to happen, I went back to the deity list and the deity I'm trying to make wasn't there. I did the process a few times and the same things happens, I don't know whether it us because I can't create an account or log in or if I've messed up something with the CAPTCHA's.<br />
::Once again, sorry if I'm still being vague about the problem. I'm not very good at explaining things.<br />
:::Did you hit "save" again after solving the puzzles? Also, as far as I'm aware we don't have any age restrictions on creating an account — we don't even ask for your birthday. Unless you mean your parents or somebody else forbade you from making one? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:12, 28 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
Ok thanks, I just wanted to make sure because my parents are just really cautious on internet sites so I just wanted to make sure that sign ins weren't necessary, thank you for your help.<br />
<br />
== Site Slowness ==<br />
<br />
Heya, BD. D&D Wiki has been slow today and I had an error a couple times. That might've been an isolated error, but I wanted to give you a head's up on this! It's been running great for awhile, so I hope it's nothing :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:34, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the heads up, I'll perform a bit of routine maintenance now. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 18:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Account Creation ==<br />
<br />
I'm really wanting to create an account, but the captcha is getting me every time. I live at a boys home where a lot of stuff is blocked, and one of those places happens to be duckduckgo. I cant seem to find the exact answer, as 110 by itself doesnt work. I was wondering if maybe you could help me. --{{unsigned|69.62.19.2}}<br />
:What's the equation? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:43, 5 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Also, we should really find a more initiative captcha system due to the regular issues with our current one. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:43, 5 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I agree; the current captcha is quite user-unfriendly. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 08:05, 5 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::me three. (sorry BD, not trying to gang up on ya :p) [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:46, 5 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::Aye, the captcha is tough. I've been trying to investigate a way to implement Google ReCaptcha that spammers don't circumvent, but it's all a big ol' hassle and not much seems to work well. I was planning to look at solutions again when I installed the security update, which I've also delayed over current events.<br />
:::To the original user: You can use google to search "<first number> XOR <second number>", or simply find an XOR calculator on the web, and get the answer that way. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 11:55, 5 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data." ==<br />
<br />
Sometimes after I try to create or edit a page I get this message and it doesn't save my edit. Why does this happen? I've never had this issue before today. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 16:35, 12 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely sure why it happens, but I get that sometimes. It's saving your edit in the edit window, right? If so, re-save and it should work. I ''think'' &mdash; and SgtLion or BD can correct me on this &mdash; that it's caused by timing out. It usually happens if I've been working on a page for awhile or put my computer to sleep.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:09, 12 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Good to know. Thanks! [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 17:11, 12 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Re-implemented old Captcha ==<br />
<br />
:Hi BD, just an informational notice: Plus follow-up to [[User_talk:Blue_Dragon#Account_Creation]], but posting it here on your talk page both to keep you up-to-date and more importantly so it's somewhere I know people will see when it all goes horribly wrong. In response to the complaints we've had about the new Captcha, I've recently been playing with Google's NoCaptcha and having no luck (see: multiple periods where I insta-ban bots registered during the three seconds NoCaptcha gets enabled); So instead today I've made the effort to re-implement your funderful PoW puzzle into FancyCaptcha and set the Captcha images to human do-able ones. It's been >10 minutes and we've not had nine trillion bots, so I'm hopeful that it's working well! But, time will tell.<br />
:Obviously, if anyone has trouble with it, or a slew of bots appear, please report it. Hopefully it just works wonderfully and people have an easier time registering! --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 14:34, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Awesome, thank you!! &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 06:35, 6 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Trying to sign up ==<br />
<br />
Man, I have been staring at this captcha thing all day trying to figure out what the hell number I’m supposed to be XORing at DuckDuckGo, but I just am not even seeing a number. Just letters. What even is this? How do I even? My boss is staring at me. He thinks I’m slacking off. There are computers piling up. I’m starting to panic. I think my oven is on. My feet are sweating and my socks feel swampy. I want to post intentionally overpowered classes and feats, but I can’t because this captcha doesn’t make sense. The salad is Caesar. Help me!<br />
<br />
Marc<br />
Marcvong@me.com<br />
<br />
:Ignore the help text above the captcha; it's left over from the old system and I guess the admin that implemented the new captcha forgot to remove it. Just enter into the text box what you see in the image. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:51, 23 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::When I climb stairs, I do two steps up, one step back. Will sort it in the morning - As Geodude671 says, just solve it like a normal captcha. I enjoyed the descriptive experience though~ --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 16:06, 23 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I meant to mention - I sorted this this morning. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 08:54, 24 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== “Adopting” a page? ==<br />
<br />
I’m pretty new to this website and I am creating a character for my friend and they wanted a ninja classed character. I found a home brew page titled Ninja (5e Class) and noticed that not only was it not finished but the page had been marked as abandoned. I think the original author of the page only partially finished the class then gave up. I deleted the “abandoned” warning thing(I think it’s called a template) and began to add and change things about the class. I was just wondering if there’s a way to make me the official author of the page? So that I can prevent others from editing it without my permission in the future? {Comment By: Dishonor0nYoCow}<br />
:Sorry pal, but dandwiki does not recognize the concept of [[Help:Attribution Policy|official authorship]], as we operate on a policy of consensus. Don't let that stop you from improving the page, though. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Oh ok, thanks for letting me know! {Comment By: Dishonor0nYoCow}<br />
<br />
== Site Slowness (again) ==<br />
<br />
Hey BD, the site has been feeling pretty sluggish for the past couple days, and I've gotten numerous 400 Bad Request errors. You usually have the magic fix to things like this, so just thought I'd let you know. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:13, 24 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:In case it helps narrow down the problem, I haven't encountered this.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:24, 24 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Normally the site pretty quick, second or two of lag but in the last few days it has been more like 12. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 05:20, 25 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hi Geodude671, just to narrow down the problems: have you tried another browser entirely? This may be painful, but sometimes something won't clear out of the cache, and if your account is fine in another browser a next debugging step may be to clear your browser's site data related to dandwiki.com. In some cases you actually have to clear all site data (keeping your passwords, etc.) but losing all cookies for all sites. I'll keep looking on this end for error messages related to the set of accounts experiencing problems. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 05:46, 3 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I have discovered that the site runs perfectly fine when I open it in incognito mode, and slows to a crawl again when I log in again. I asked a couple other users who are experiencing this problem and they report the same. I really think it's something tied to my account that's causing issues, somehow. <br />
:::The problems I've been having with the site have only gotten worse, to the point where I can't even browse the site while logged in. The error I am now getting is [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/278007756068356096/518873430758785064/Capture.PNG this]. — Geodude671 08:27, 3 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Did you try logging in from another browser as BD suggested? I'm not as good with this stuff as he and SgtLion are, but it's worth following through with his suggestion in case that fixes it.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 08:32, 3 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, does it slow down when you log in while in incognito mode? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 08:45, 3 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Yes, it slows down immensely both in incognito mode and in another browser. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.227.196|107.77.227.196]] 08:49, 3 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Well, I believe this should be fixed now. I'm still digging into what exactly caused the bug. Please let me know if it continues to have problems. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 08:47, 8 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This does seem to be fixed for me. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 08:55, 8 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks for taking the time to look into this BD. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:07, 8 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Random Link Unresponsiveness ==<br />
<br />
I'm almost 100% certain that this is a problem with the software on my end only, but I'm having a recurring problem navigating the wiki. When I click to open a page, I can click on links on the page, but not to edit it. The link acts as an image, not text, even asking me if I want to download it when I long-press. I have to go to a link on the page, then hit the back button to return to the page to get it to load correctly. If I get to an edit page, I can't click the main page button from there. For context, this is only happening with my Samsung Galaxy S8 via Google Chrome browser. It isn't an earth shatteringly bad glitch, it's just kind of a nuisance. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 19:58, 13 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:I encounter this occasionally on my iPhone 5s (?). I’m fairly certain it’s a clientside problem as I’ve never encountered it on a computer. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:20, 13 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::It's a mobile problem, and I have informed Blue Dragon about this. It seems to have something to do with the header merging into the page's CSS, since there are instances where MediaWiki notifications (like "New Messages") do not refresh if the header is acting up.<br />
::To navigate, until this problem is figured out, you can refresh the page you are on a number of times until the header fixes itself and then use the top bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:05, 14 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::That makes sense. I noticed that when it happens on help pages, the help portal's formatting goes crazy. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 09:59, 14 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Lionring ==<br />
<br />
{{lionring|I award you the Lion Ring for being a kind, understanding and sympathetic friend to disrespected D&D Wiki users both in and off the Wiki. This was much appreciated, including by me <3--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 19:36, 31 December 2018 (MST)}}<br />
:Thank you! :) &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 09:10, 1 January 2019 (MST)<br />
::Isn't a Lionring a magical item that makes you immune to fear effects? --Redrum 17:26, 6 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== EXEMPTION request: ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I figured out "mercenary guardian" from schooling. and am about to go play my first D&D ever tonight- It's time for me to let go of "my cape" and aquire a cloak. <br />
<br />
I am creating a new account for the website either Shadow or Mercenary Viper. Let's go with "Shadow Viper". But it isn't working out, I get the captcha right, but the "Begin Puzzle Box" is incomprehensible. I've been granted an EXEMPTION (as it says on the page) to ask for your helpor SgtLion's. <br />
<br />
I asked for SgtLion's help think we were of the same cause being footsoldiers first, but he told me on DISCORD that he's banned in fact. He relayed me to you.<br />
<br />
Sorry for the delay, All Mighty Blue Dragon.<br />
<br />
If you speak to him and would like a more pivotal acknowledgement that I tried to reason with SgtLion then all you need to know is my DISCORD name; "SPARTAN Dabrowski".--[[Special:Contributions/73.22.147.35|73.22.147.35]] 15:06, 6 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hi SPARTAN Dabrowski, welcome to the site! I have made an exemption request for your IP. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 06:40, 19 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Issues with missing fields ==<br />
<br />
Hey, BD. I've [[:File:Missing checkbox.PNG|noticed]] that on [[Special:MovePage]] the checkbox to move the associated talk page is missing. [[User:Balmz]] also [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/516290071893245992/538127695741976595/dd.png reported] being unable to assign an email to his account because of the "new email" field being missing. Would you happen to know anything about what might be causing this? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:25, 30 January 2019 (MST)<br />
:While I track this down, if anyone could email me / private message me with their required email address changes I'll be able to make the change directly in the back-end. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 06:36, 12 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::Hi BD, any updates on this? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:11, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hi BD, any updates on this? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:13, 14 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Please let us know what is going on. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:46, 8 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Sorry for the lack of comms. Basically, I think it should be somewhat easy to fix. Every time I have dug in it appears to be a difficult to figure out bug, and I've spent a few hours trying to find the cause unsuccessfully. Do you have any ideas on what it might be? Otherwise, my plan was to upgrade the wiki and hopefully the new UI components piece wouldn't have this bug, but I haven't made time for it. Thanks for the continual reminders, I'll try to focus on this again soon. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 05:10, 9 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
Hey, this isn't really worth making a separate topic for, but could I request that you make it so that when we use [[Special:ReplaceText]], it says in the edit summary "Automated text replacement" instead of just "Text replacement"? This would help communicate to users that such edits/actions are script-assisted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:37, 3 March 2019 (MST)<br />
:Good idea Geo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 12:09, 3 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Deletion Request==<br />
I really havent used this site much, especially for more in depth stuff like trying to delete posts, so I was wondering if you could delete this page https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Puuvilian_(5e_Race) as it's a homebrew i created, and showed a couple of people, one of which (i dont know who) decided to try to add it here for some reason, which only served to make me look bad when someone looked the race up in my new campaign when i showed the race to them. honestly it doesnt belong on this website.</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Deletion_Policy&diff=1182761Help talk:Deletion Policy2019-06-09T16:15:24Z<p>GamerAim: /* Vark's Good Faith */ Added an addendum.</p>
<hr />
<div>I know you said "be bold" but I'd rather keep the writing style consistent, if you don't mind making a few changes?<br />
<br />
#'''Sole contributor requests deletion.''' Please make it clear that this only applies to insubstantial articles, i.e. articles which were blanked shortly after creation and which do not qualify as "usable" articles. We do not delete articles simply by user request, as this could be deleterious to the people who use the site. This is one of the causes of a split that occurred among staff years ago :(<br />
#'''Speedy Deletion.''' I believe that [[Template:needsadmin]] is typically used to call out a need for speedy deletion, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Just something worth considering :)<br />
#'''Not English.''' I do recall that, under specific circumstances, non-English pages are allowed. I think the context was that a non-English campaign setting is allowed?<br />
--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You're right. It might be for the best that changes this bold weren't made without a discussion.<br />
:#I would like another opinion on this before adding it in and/or making this policy official. In my own time, I've seen several substantial articles deleted solely due to "Speedy deletion criteria G7" and "author request," and only one or two instances where this was denied. (Iirc at least one of those instances ended in nothing but a furious user and the retention of content that needed improvement, anyway. Doesn't seem to me like that goes well, but I could be wrong.)<br />
:#It is and can be, but even before I became an admin it was apparent to me that direct notification gathers a response more swiftly than that template. If you want it can be added in, but even if it follows precedent I don't really see it being as effective.<br />
:#To me this seems rather dubious. I would like another opinion covering this explicitly before adding it in. Do you know what campaign setting(s) to which this applied? Do you remember who else might have been involved in the instance(s) where a non-English campaign setting was allowed?<br />
:- [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"G7" should only be invoked in the case of incomplete articles, and maybe only shortly after creation (not sure about that last part). Completed articles should never be deleted under "G7." I don't think I wrote that clearly the first time, but either way GD can confirm this whenever he responds. I was referring to the needsadmin template as being used in place of the delete template, not suggesting that it's improper to ask on the Admin talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but again I don't think it really ''matters'' which template is used to summon a speedy deletion, just saying which one I've seen used for it most often. GD himself allowed the campaign setting to remain, as I recall, but I think it was subsequently deleted for normal reasons. If GD thinks it's a good idea, we could put a note saying to ask him for permission before adding non-English content. Otherwise, I'm fine with continuing our official English-only stance with no written exceptions.<br />
<br />
::I'm mostly sharing my experience with policy here, not any personal opinion of mine, though I do feel strongly about not deleting good content just because OP wants it removed. So long as GD clears up these points, I can't think of any major issues I have with your proposal. I apologize if I came off as dismissive of it just because I only shared suggested corrections!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:01, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::#I agree with GA here.<br />
::#I agree with Guy here that it doesn't seem all that effective. If anything its a preference but not a hard rule.<br />
::#I was involved in that. If I recall correctly, I asked GD about it when I happened upon a largely incomplete setting in Spanish(I believe) and it was deleted. I'm unsure about the name but I believe it was on his talk page.<br />
:::Other then that, this is well written and seems pretty comprehensive. I have no qualms about making this policy atm. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think this is pretty awesomely written, top notch. I've made three tiny additions that I'm hoping aren't controversial, but please anyone speak up or edit them constructively if so.<br />
::::Non-English campaign settings / OGL content are allowed (though, we've historically had a higher required standard of quality for them); We semi-recently deleted a [[Serpia (5e Campaign Setting)|foreign campaign setting]], but this decision was made because of the incompletion and poor quality. I do agree with GamerAim on their points, too, we should be discouraging the use of G7 best we can, within reason. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As it appears to be consensus, I've downplayed "G7." It now should read that it ''allows'' an administrator to speedily delete for this reason, but makes it apparent (hopefully) that this alone shouldn't constitute deletion of quality content.<br />
:::::The part about non-English content was reworked to not apply if a translation is included. In practice, any content not in English at all could effectively be immune to all the other reasons for deletion, just because it's very possible no active users of D&D Wiki may be able understand it. To me seems ''potentially'' very problematic, especially if it's in a language more esoteric than Spanish. If this still isn't lenient enough, I suppose the line can be deleted entirely.<br />
:::::GD's edit summary suggests he's already given this approval, though knowing he's busy it might've been a quick skim that missed finer bits like those brought up here. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm happy enough with this policy and all the latest editions, thus far. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:19, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you remember the articles you mentioned being deleted, would you please restore them? I remembered a specific example, and as per [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kaleid_Ooze_%283.5e_Creature%29&type=revision&diff=554355&oldid=554287 here] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&direction=next&oldid=556054#Please_remove_all_my_material_from_this_Wiki here], users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want it uploaded here anymore. I hope this clarifies things :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:03, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It is worth noting that in the six year period that has passed since the precedents you are citing, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent {{dash}} although clearly precedent differs, which is part of the reason I worked on this. Are you suggesting the '''author request''' portion again be changed?<br />
::::Oh. I fear I now understand why you edited that portion of this (still unofficial) policy. I assume every single time you see a page deleted by author request, you intend to "disagree" with that deletion?<br />
::::... Hopefully I'm jumping to false conclusions, but, I can't help but find that possibility very disappointing. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:45, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As stated elsewhere, it has been solid and longstanding policy not to delete work by author request unless it's unplayable anyway, been around a very short time, or otherwise exceptional circumstances. I don't care to go hunting for ye olde talk page that is miles long with argument over this policy, but the end state is - Nobody owns the work that is posted to D&D Wiki, and we rarely grant the optional courtesy of removing that work just because the author asked for it. Unless [[User:Green Dragon]] has had a major change of heart on this matter (in which case, we should discuss further), the policy should reflect this. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::And please don't passively berate people for making valid contributions to policy; GamerAim is trying to reflect and vocalise the longstanding position this wiki has very strongly held. Speculation and declaring your disappointment over imagined acts doesn't help anybody. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::To be clear, I'm only enforcing long-standing policy as SgtLion said. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and if discussion with GD decides that we should enforce user ownership on D&D Wiki, I will enforce our new policy. My only intent thus far is to educate newer and less-informed administrators (and other users) on our established procedures, not to enforce my own "interpretation" of policy based on a single edit from years before I even joined. The recent shift to improving our codification of policy is, well, recent. Older admins - even myself, a relatively newer admin - tended to have this understanding of the spirit and intent, policy and history of D&D Wiki. I'm not knocking any of the newer admins who came to D&D Wiki with beliefs that greatly differ from those D&D Wiki was founded on. I'm just saying that this is why many policies are buried away in old talk page discussions because we didn't always write down our consensus after it was reached.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I believe I was the first admin to start citing G7 on this wiki, although I admit I do not recall the context. It may have been a case where the author realized they did not want to release the content under GFDL. It can be a useful procedure for uncontroversial dispute resolution, and also those cases where a user makes an incomplete page then blanks it.<br />
::::::: Now, about these situations where there are old articles (perhaps very good ones) with a user request for deletion. I know historically we have not wanted to let go of these pages, and strictly these pages are not "owned" by the author. This part of G7 is about behaving with good faith, perhaps we should be respecting these users wishes. From a Wikipedia point of view, it's not a deletion process that should even go through a discussion. Having said that, G7 is ''very fragile'' - all it takes is another user to make a non-trivial edit and G7 is invalidated.--{{unsigned|Marasmusine}}<br />
<br />
::::::::Indeed you were, as I remember. I think all the points you present are valid. I do vaguely remember Green Dragon taking a specific strong stance on this that is in-line with what you've said. When I can find the relevant discussion page, or they get a moment to specify again, we can probably be clearer on the matter. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the discussion I was thinking of was [[User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages]], where actually Marasmusine was more involved than I. Though this was a time when courteous spirit played a bigger part than hard policy, so it's hard to imagine the same process going so smoothly anymore. As such, and due to conflicting precedents, I don't mind us going any which way on this policy, it seems whatever works, just as long as we make it clear. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 01:30, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::Looking at that discussion, it seems Green Dragon's concern is that we would be setting a precedent of breaking protocol to meet a user's demands; or starting a slippery slope of deleting things willy-nilly. It's because of the TierArea incident that I started using Wikipedia's speedy deletion critiera to show there is a framework for this. In the same way, we don't have to use the two-week deletion process for a page that just says "LOLOLOL" (criteria G3), unused redirects (criteria G6), material under copyright (G12), or the all too frequent "empty-but-the-template" pages (A3).<br />
:::::::::As for misusing the deletion tool, the point of being an admin is that they can be trusted to use their judgement to make exceptions when it betters the wiki. If there's a pattern of misuse, it's back to RfA with you :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, can we agree to put this policy as written into effect? I think the current wording of 'user request' sufficiently balances that we are under no obligation to delete articles under sole contributor request, but can where judgment allows. <br />
:Or do we want to adjust a clause to say that G7 is not valid where is likely to be controversial, or for substantial content (such as the deletion of featured articles or entire campaign settings)?<br />
:Either way, these few sentences seem to be the only part of contention; If it is, can we just exclude that section 'til we agree on it? I'm still seeing admins implementing deletions improperly as I type, so it'd be nice to a have a super clear policy to point to so we can all be on the same page. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 09:37, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I think the current version could be implemented, yes. As you stated, G7 is the only point of contention, it seems like, so I'll comment that part out and then move this into the Help namespace. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This discussion shows me how important it is to have this policy. Everyone has different perspectives about how to delete pages. If it's not written down, it leads to some very heated situations. But, in recollection, it has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page.<br />
:::I am grateful to work with a written down policy about page deletions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I am also grateful; your suggestion to codify our deletion policy after years of informal changes was a good one :) So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion now? An article can be deleted solely for that reason? I've no issue with this, as it seems your stance has changed over the years, but I worded it that way to be doubly sure before we write this in stone! If this is indeed the case, we should also go forward with deleting the Meadowlands campaign setting (again)?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::When I used the word "always" above, simply, I meant to use that word. I have never denied a deletion by authors request except for speedy deletions and deletions of licensing problems (which is in the best interests of D&D Wiki). I don't understand why users want their content to be deleted occasionally (it seems like a waste of their work), and my stance on this has not changed either. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::It was a yes or no question. Please say "yes" or "no" to "So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion?"--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yes, currently (and always) that is a valid reason for deletion. Note: '''sole''' contributor, not '''main''' contributor. We likely need more input from more users if we are to change this policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've been operating under the mentality of Wikipedia's CSD G7, which lets pages be deleted speedily upon request of the sole ''significant'' contributor. I take this to mean that a page's creator can request deletion even if another user has made edits like fixing grammar or formatting issues, adding/changing/removing categories, or other minor edits (minor in scope, not necessarily only edits marked as "minor"). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:14, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Thank you! If no one else does so first, I will make sure the wording on this page reflects that articles can be proposed and deleted for that reason. I will also make it clear that they cannot be speedy deleted for that reason under Wikipedia G7. I think Geodude is also right to ask if minor edits from other users void this deletion reason. I assume so, but clarity is always appreciated.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::"Sole ''significant'' contributor" makes more sense for the policy than just "sole contributor" since that does not explicitly state the interactions about maintenance and minor edits. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I-I think this means we've finally all agreed on and codified our deletion policy, speedy deletes and all. Do we celebrate now? This was a collaborative effort between many administrators and other users and I am pleased to have been a part of it \o/ --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:19, 11 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Should we be able to speedily delete pages with no content whatsoever? I'm not talking about pages which are simply sparse; I'm talking about pages like [[Hacker]] and [[Aequor de Chao]] which contain virtually no content at all. I'm mainly comparing this to Wikipedia's CSDs A1 and A3. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:58, 20 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I consider that a reasonable proposal. If no one objects, go ahead and make the appropriate changes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Seems fine to me too. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:10, 22 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It's been a few days and no one objected so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, here we go. Based on the discussion here and [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages here], as well as all the reading I've done and all the back and forth across the wiki recently, I'm just going to go ahead and outline all my arguments as simply as possible in an effort to just get this whole thing over with. I'm going to be blunt, but I'd like to say up front that I have no ill intent or desire to be rude or disrespectful. As I've said in my own user page and several other places, I consider you all my seniors in these matters and in tabletop, and I'd also like to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I'll number my points and try to be as organized as possible regarding this so people can respond easily. There needs to be discussion; talking through a problem is how it gets resolved.<br />
:1) Let me start by saying, right away, that this business of speaking entirely through text has been very messy. It's incredibly difficult to tell, especially when people speak in such a high-brow manner (as I am now, because of the atmosphere and perceived standard of discourse), someone's disposition. I would like to think I've simply been misinterpreting how admins feel, but my current perception is that Green Dragon, ConcealedLight, and ConcealedWife think users like myself or Varkarrus are peons not worth talking to or listening to, and our opinions, arguments, and emotions mean nothing, logical or not. There seems to be a great deal of bias being thrown around, and after Geodude told me that this wiki does not operate strictly according to written policy, like a bureaucracy would, my fear as only deepened in this regard. I don't want to remain in an environment where I feel as though my role is to not ask questions and pump out content that will then go on to not be respected, because that's exactly what seems to be developing here.<br />
:2) Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor. I can see there was some discussion about whether grammar or balance help was a significant contribution, but the fact that the term is undefined means that any admin can interpret it on a case by case basis and use the term to exercise power for power's sake. I would argue that this has happened on [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages, where there seems to be perceived value to the wiki in holding the work hostage by using ambiguous wording in policy and baseless personal desire to override goodwill and reason. The logical solution for the latter two pages would have been to honor the deletion request and simply recreate them with a new author, balanced and done as admin and other users seem to desire. Instead, both pages have been altered against authorial intent (which goes against the spirit and letter of the editing policy), and are being argued over and defended as if a little goblin has tried to steal gold from a dragon's hoard.<br />
:3) I'm concerned that it's possible for a user, regardless of rank or status, to swoop in when an article has been requested for deletion - not abandoned or purposefully put up for adoption - and begin editing it and cutting it up in an attempt to become a significant contributor to block the deletion request. It comes off as either petty or as a coordinated behind-the-scenes effort to hold a page hostage, and it's positively abhorrent that it's allowed or possible at all. In such a case where users are invested in such content, the logical solution, again, would have been to simply delete the page and start anew with a new author and a more collaborative effort based on the work of the previous author. Inspired works like that are created all the time, after all, and the license this wiki uses gives it that kind of wiggle room. (As an added note, there is no point during account creation until preparing to hit the "save changes" button where the license is presented. Even then, it is a tiny footnote, practically an after-thought, and nowhere is a user required to agree to the license in order to sign up or edit anonymously. Based on existing court cases involving places like Wikipedia, and precedents set, that puts this wiki on very thin legal ice.)<br />
:4) Finally, I would like to ask that there be an addition of some kind of definition for "significant" contributions and the like. If a page is comprised of the edits from the author to the tune of tens of thousands of bytes, and other community members have only fixed some grammar or changed a number or two, adding up to bytes numbering in the tens to low hundreds, I hardly see how that's grounds for calling them primary contributors on par with the author. Instead, it would make perfect sense if other users had helped define the page's flavor text, such as adding history to a race when the author had none, or adding new features or traits, etc. If such things were discussed in the talk page and the additions were made by the author, but the changes were discussed by multiple users and it was just the author who happened to be the one to update the page, that, too, would make sense to call a collaborative effort. The latter two pages I've linked do not fall under those cases - or didn't until this morning, which I've previously addressed.<br />
:I'm a creator here as well, just like Varkarrus. The volume of my created pages pales in comparison, but the fact remains that these rules affect me as well. As of yet, I haven't added anything to the wiki that either isn't already copyrighted material (submitted under Fair Use, of course), or that I'm extremely attached to as an original creation. That is not the case for Varkarrus, as I understand it. This wiki ended up being a great platform for organizing, editing, and publicizing original works, as well as those inspired by Wizards of the Coast content or folklore. The fact that such works are effectively being held down for no other reason than not wanting to let them go, or not wanting to do the work to recreate them in spiritual successor pages, baffles me to no end, and stifles any desire I had to become a part of this community and work with others to create collaborative and original content on the platform.<br />
:The behavior I've seen jump out of nowhere, which I am only invested in because I was invested in the content of pages that were requested to be deleted, has spiraled into discussions that are going nowhere, and reprehensible behavior on all sides. I know a lot of people can't believe someone would put this much effort into something solely for a thankless task for the sake of someone else, so I cite that I'm a creator with self-interest in the precedents set in this matter to ease such people's suspicions. I doubt that will be enough. <br />
:I've provided as much context and as many arguments as I can think of at the moment, but the fact is that I am mentally and emotionally fried after trying to fight this. I've been constantly angry for almost 48 hours, at what I see as great injustice at the hands of people in power who don't appear to care about the effect their actions are having on others, and it's not healthy for me. Since being objective and logical clearly isn't the only welcome talk on this wiki given the actions of other users recently, I feel like that is also important context. I can only hope that my tone in this message hasn't come across as angry; I'm tired, sad, exasperated, and concerned, but this is the only thing I can think to do to try and pull the discussion to one relevant location and try to talk about it as calmly and openly as possible. As the entire thing hinges on deletion requests and policy, this seemed to be the best place for it.<br />
:Please, I hope we can have a discussion about this and be rational. I want to see goodwill shown, not contempt or frustration, on my part or anyone else's. I just want this to end so I can stop talking about it, stop watching all these pages, and finally step away. It's just not in me to let it go until it's been resolved, and I can't consider something resolved if either or both parties simply square their shoulders, plant their feet, and refuse to change their minds or accept that they might be wrong about something. If I've misunderstood policy, or misinterpreted actions of other users - if I'm demonstrably wrong, I want to know so I can move on. I'd like to think everyone else here is the same. I look forward to working with you all in this matter. {{Unsigned|Max7238}}<br />
<br />
::In light of recent events, I agree that there should be added a better definition for "significant contribution" as it relates to this policy. I've already seen several users (including at least one admin) deliberately abuse this wording for what was obviously not the intent. I would seek to not let that happen again.<br />
::That said, I fear consensus on what constitutes a significant contribution would be difficult to reach. Even if consensus was reached, chances to me seem high that would be ignored by two or more admins. Even so, at the very least, I would have assumed most of us would agree that "significant contributions" do not include (1) any number of edits deliberately marked as a minor edit or (2) any amount of formatting/spellchecking that doesn't actually change the game effects or story elements of the content. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 15:52, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really wish I had more time but before it’s too late I wanted to say thanks for posting somewhere that brings it all together. I also cannot disagree with Guy. For the most part Max either but not here to argue Max. I also want to point out the shame of Vark’s work being unrecognized except for half a dozen pieces until Vark decided enough was enough and wanted to pull their Vark. Now it’s like a mad dash to edit each page. Where the gosh darn bleeping bleeping bleep was everyone the entire time she’s been a user in this wiki and only got feedback if it I was a race (because CL touches them all) or a FAN? I am flabbergasted by the behavior. It really makes it hard to believe the wiki deletion is being used in good faith by the wiki itself. Any how, only a couple hours a day of free WiFi to even log on for this. Cheers! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 20:42, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have two points to make. Firstly, we are also forgetting that this is supposed to be a ''speedy'' deletion. If we make it a 2 week thing, it leaves it open for someone to come in and make a big edit, nullifying the deletion rationale. If the page qualifies, it needs to be deleted ''straight away''. <br />
::::Secondly, the G7 proposal has to be made in good faith. Here are examples of G7 rationales (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion]): <br />
::::*"You're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content"<br />
::::*"you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with."<br />
::::*"you just screwed up and created a page with a title like User:User:Example"<br />
::::To this I also add:<br />
::::*You're making a page and learn that the site's license isn't appropriate for you (e.g. you wish to retain copyright).<br />
::::Asking for your page to be deleted out of spite because you've had some falling out with another user is ''not'' in good faith and is not a G7 rationale.<br />
::::Finally, I will add that it's Green Dragon's site and he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't deleted, regardless of guidelines. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's "supposed to be a speedy deletion"? According to our policy as currently written, "request of sole significant contributor" is the 2-week thing, [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help:Deletion_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=1092641 or as GamerAim put it, "the CfD process."]<br />
:::::Marasmusine, you are referencing Wikipedia's criteria again. This policy page itself was written so we don't rely on Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia's policy is designed for an encyclopedia of undisputed facts, not for original creative writing. We don't have G7. We have our own deletion policy, which was written and readjusted (and re-re-adjusted) over the course of months by several prominent users. <s>It would be nice if the page wasn't locked so I could correct some of the minor problems introduced through all these readjustments but that's beside the point.</s> If sole-significant should in fact be speedy deletion instead of the 2-week thing, then this policy should be edited to portray that instead of contradicting it.<br />
:::::If "good faith" is a requirement for "request of sole significant contributor," then that should be added to our policy as well. I am not sure if I agree with that personally. 'Good faith' seems extremely ambiguous when it comes to original creations, and too much ambiguity seems like it's part of the problem right now. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::First and foremost, if Green Dragon is the "ultimate arbiter" of what is done, regardless of any policy whatsoever, then why is there policy written at all? If it's a space for ''anyone'' to just do whatever they want, I'm ''pretty'' sure that should just be explicitly stated, and done so upon account creation or trying to edit the wiki at all. I'm also ''positive'' that I'll never create another page on this wiki, and that I'm about done editing anything but talk pages.<br />
::::::Second, can someone please direct the rest of admin to this page, so we can hear from them? ConcealedWife is having a field day with one of the pages, now, too. I could understand a user, or an IP, doing something like this, but if I'm expected to believe that what amounts to the staff of the wiki are allowed to conduct themselves in this way and not have it raise every red flag in the book, it would go a long way in convincing me that policy is indeed moot, and that this is simply Green Dragon's domain to do with as he sees fit... Including appoint friends to do as they see fit, so long as the only toes they step on don't belong to him.<br />
::::::Third, I was told to sit by and wait, and only respond if everyone else did first, but this is all just too much to watch. BigShot made an excellent point; you can just look at the history of some of these pages and plainly see that until Varkarrus wanted them gone, almost no one cared. Now there's uproar among a very small crowd to "save the pages?" Or do what, exactly? Why else would people, especially administration, suddenly pop out of the woodwork to start mass edits of a page that one of the users they're supposed to help protect requested to be deleted? After the behavior in the Discord, which I was told repeatedly is unofficial, despite being created and run by the same people, under the same name as this website, where I saw incredible amounts of contempt and disrespect being thrown around, seeing this illustrates perfectly that this wiki is not the environment to remain in if one is a creator in any capacity. Unfortunately, I can't request that my own pages be deleted, because then I'd receive the same treatment!<br />
::::::Finally, it's too late to rewrite policy for this. I'm sure it will only change after the fact, if it does at all. As written, right now, it can easily be interpreted to not only ''allow'' this behavior, but encourage it. And, based on the behavior I'm seeing, that makes a select group of people very happy to swing it like a cudgel at anyone in the way of them doing as they please. It's impossible to have a discussion about any of this, any of what's going on, and not sound disrespectful or "uncivil," but I can promise you I'm doing my best while being more angry and frustrated than I've been in months - or years. As policy stands, and as long as the aforementioned actions continue, I can think nothing else of this entire site but "get out as soon as possible."<br />
::::::When this is all over, regardless of the conclusion, you'll never see me active on this wiki again. I'm sure that will ''also'' make some people very happy - others maybe not - but I'm not even going to go as far as requesting my works be deleted for any reason. My pages here are either already copyrighted material, submitted under fair use, or cool ideas I had that I wanted to show to friends and thought the public might like. I'm nobody on this wiki, so I guess being blown off shouldn't surprise me. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 08:40, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Then this shows why "user requests deletion" ''should'' be a speedy criteria per how Wikipedia handles it. It either meets the uncontroversial criteria for deletion, or it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be deleted (as the author has published it under the free document license). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I've moved our replies to [[#Speedy deletion for author requests]], so as not to detract from the other points brought up by Max7238. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have a policy, that puts our work behind our actions. Saying that an admin really cares about a page so much as to circumvent policy is not what is happening. As admins we should not blindly trust users, so going through a list of pages to see if they match our deletion policy is not only impartial, it's also necessary. It's apparent that you have very little experience in situations like this, and your wish to never submit anything to D&D Wiki only makes me question your expertise more, and if you are really the right person to get ideas from. It's beneficial for us to work with users who have hurdled over even the toughest of situations, and not users without experience but some ideas. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Let me start by saying that I answered in the section below first. With that out of the way, I next need to say that I call em as I see em, and actions speak a lot louder than words. I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality. That quality did not always come from collaborative work. I already cited the relevant pages where, obviously, it became a collaboration and those pages should remain. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of her created pages are, or were, being edited like mad in what seemed to be clear cases of bad faith. One user had simply not seen the discussion and started edits, and I've already cleared that up in your absence. Another user completely threw out authorial intent, and went so far as to state in edit messages that they would pretty much completely rewrite a page, which had little purpose other than ousting the original author as the SSC.<br />
::::::::::I ''don't'' want to submit here anymore. Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat ''maybe'' twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::::::::::You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to. I'm a user of the wiki. I've been lurking for the better part of two years. I've got a degree in law, I specifically went out of my way to study digital law, cyber security, social inequality, and sociology (down to specifics like globalization) for my electives. I'm not here for some faceless entity over the internet to question who and what I am, because the fact is that it doesn't change the argument. It doesn't change that policy as written is flawed and rife with opportunity for abuse - abuse that has been occurring these past few days. If that policy does not change, then no, I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun. There's no point in getting invested in anything I post on this wiki that isn't being submitted under Fair Use, because the instant it's here, based on your actions and the actions of other admin, it's yours now. Even following the spirit of policy rather than the letter, only the Maralith and Lich pages should remain. That we're having this discussion at ''all'' should be plenty of evidence that there's a problem. It wouldn't go on this long if there wasn't!<br />
::::::::::It's beneficial for you to work with people who give a care. It's beneficial for a public resource like this to harness the potential of those who pass through it. It's beneficial for this wiki to welcome creativity and ''respect'' it. That's not being done right now. I care too much about everything, and I know that. I have a great deal of potential to ''help'' you (and you all, because written English is weird), and I want to. And creativity is ''not'' being welcomed or respected as long as it's within the realm of possibility for this discussion to occur. You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website." As it stands, it's now plain to see that that license is being abused to allow the hoarding of information under a single banner without regard for the creator's wishes. It's just there so you avoid being sued in as many situations as possible, and to be cited when you don't want to let a page go - that's what the actions are stating, loud and clear.<br />
::::::::::Please stay on topic, as personal attacks are a fallacy and have no place in intellectual debate. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:51, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I have already gone through all these deletion requests. Please give some examples of what you want, because this work has already been done by me.<br />
:::::::::::I have quoted our editing policy verbatim, bit I guess you didn't read it? Are works submitted to D&D Wiki to be edited mercilessly and copied at will? <br />
:::::::::::This is the first time I have had any contact with your user. Your contributions speak for your experience. It's not an insult, it's just as simple as looking through your user contributions.<br />
:::::::::::If you just want to submit your ''crap'' here then, frankly, I don't want anything to do with any policy that you would ''crap out''.<br />
:::::::::::Please supply references to your claims, and if you are doing research please don't take quotes from {{user|Marasmusine}} out of context. I already stated which users I prefer to work with. I don't think it's too hard for you to lay out some of this sweat so that we can get to the core of what everyone wants.<br />
:::::::::::And anyone who could get sued is the user who re-licenses an already oublished work. Please read and quote the GNU FDL (and start go deeper into all the discussions that have already answered this question). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::: *''"Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor."''<br />
::::::::::::There's also the matter of the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Light_Beam_(5e_Spell) Light Beam] page being reverted, despite the author being the SSC.<br />
::::::::::: *''"This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this."''<br />
::::::::::::I wasn't aware that what pretty much amounts to an informal blurb there was part of policy. Even if it is, it does not say you agree to using the license, nor does it say you lose the copyright to the work. It says "your writing" which could be anything from your flavor to whatever else, is vague and reminiscent of government policy passed with the express purpose of giving a government too much power over something.<br />
::::::::::: *''"...assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about."''<br />
::::::::::::Having just received a warning, from you, no less, only to return to this page and see that you are also engaging in such behavior: taunting or baiting me, which is a matter of interpretation (I interpreted your statement about experience to be such, but I can't warn you for it), and quoting users out of context, such as using my colloquial usage of "crap" to insult my propositions and position on this debate.<br />
::::::::::::If I was quoting Mara, especially out of context, I apologize. It wasn't my intention, and if I did, I didn't realize. Your preference is all well and good, but again, it has no bearing on the debate at hand. I've already provided sources in the original post for this particular section of the debate (sorry I neglected to create a new section, but I was also so flustered that I didn't even sign the original post). If you're looking for specific demands, it would be, to restate for the umpteenth time on this page alone, to have a clearer definition of terms used in order to close loopholes that may be abused by users acting to keep a creator from exercising their rights; and, to reinstate the deletion requests, and honor said requests, of Varkarrus where they were valid to begin with, such as, again, [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages and the aforementioned Light Beam page. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have already responded on these talk pages. Your reasons are wrong, but you are still trying to make them your argument here?<br />
:Again, read the GNU FDL, look at previous discussions, and you must also understand that IP addresses use the same terminology as if you had created an account.<br />
:You have less than 500 edits, and you are trying to implement a far reaching policy based on how you perceive the situation? Again, I would expect to be working with a more experienced user here, probably no less than 3000 edits.<br />
:You said ''"... I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun."'' so how is your work on this policy not 'throwaway crap'? It's not a misquote, it's your logic, actions, and words exactly.<br />
:Maybe it's because you have less than 500 edits, but it's not a debate to win and lose. Have you even read [[w:Wikipedia:Consensus]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Can you explain why they're wrong, since you want to state that so plainly? I think this is simply a matter of us having different definitions of what a "major contribution" is... Which is sort of the point of this entire discussion, isn't it?<br />
::I have, I have, I do.<br />
::Irrelevant, again. Someone with no edits could just as easily come in and read all this and have the conversation as someone with a million. The difference is whether they have the foresight to understand what the changes will do, and if I haven't demonstrated that yet, I'd be glad to.<br />
::Yes, that is what I said. It's good thing I'm not the one able to edit deletion policy, then, isn't it? Sarcasm aside, you know full well it isn't, you're just continuing to mischaracterize my statement and use it to try and bait me, which, again, no one can warn you for, so you're free to violate your own behavioral policy as you wish. If you find the time, please, look at the pages I've created. Maybe they aren't balanced correctly, which I readily admit, but that's why I was posting them and requesting review - but they aren't just the kind of thing someone could come up with off the top of their heads, throw on the wiki, and walk away thinking they were the greatest creator ever. None of my pages are nominated for FA or QA, and I wouldn't nominate myself unless I felt I deserved it, and I don't. I have a long way to go to be as good as the rest of those articles.<br />
::I hadn't no, but now I have, thank you. As it happens, there's more in there to support me, so I appreciate it. Based on everything I'm seeing right now, actually, you seem to be the only one who ''doesn't'' agree at this point. I'd like to continue going about convincing you, but you don't seem very receptive to conversation for some reason. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 23:45, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Speedy deletion for author requests==<br />
In regards to speedy deletion, I'm not sure I follow.<br/><br />
Several times now user-requested-deletion has been '''very''' controversial. Once when I was an admin, I deleted a page that had three reasons for deletion&mdash;including the user requesting deletion in good faith&mdash;but not only was that deletion overturned by another admin, it seemingly caused extreme ire towards me from that admin. Especially with the current vagueness of "significant contribution," the 14 day period allows there to be discussion if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then I don't really see the problem with keeping it for 14 days, especially if it can prevent unintended controversy and ire.<br/><br />
Having the 14 day grace period serves another purpose: it lets anyone who wants to save the content do so. I know {{User|Quincy}} has done so with several deleted pages, and I don't see a strong enough reason not to let that happen, either.<br/><br />
If my own perspective and judgement here fails to convince, Green Dragon commented on this very page back in October, as follows. "It has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page." - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:05, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:"Saving" content by making edits is a problem. When I made edits at [[:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)]] this was seen as a bad-faith attempt to negate the author's request. It is also a problem if an author wishes to withdraw their work because they misunderstood the license and wish to retain their copyright. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I should have been more clear. When I wrote "saving" content, I meant either (1) copying it into a text file for personal use, or (2) creating a copy in one's userspace with the author's permission. I agree that editing a page to negate deletion request is likely to be problematic. That is best discouraged, but in light of my preceding comments, I don't believe speedy deletion is the best way to discourage that. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I agree that there simply shouldn't be speedy deletion unless the page was unfinished and only had one contributor: the author. Other people may be invested in a page even if the author was unaware (someone could have it in their watch-list, using it for a character already, and you get no notification of the "follow"). I would argue that pages should be soft-locked to some extent while the discussion proceeds. It allows everyone, not just administration and/or the author to voice their take on things, consolidate context, save the contents of the page as a back-up or for Fair Use recreation, etc, etc. Between that and actually defining "primary contributor" or "major contribution" I think this page would improve vastly. If you lock the page, allow the discussion to proceed, investigate the history and talk page, and it can be determined using those new definitions that the author was, in fact, the primary contributor or the ''only'' contributor, it doesn't make sense for there to be extensive discussion. As I said, and as others have said long before me, in those cases, the page can just be created anew following the license terms and copyright law. If reaction videos on YouTube can be protected, and AMVs can be protected, there's no reason that a re-imagined page on a wiki couldn't be too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:38, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::There [[:Template:Locked_Page|is precedent]] for contributors requesting a page they created to be locked, of course. That seems like it could be a good option to employ.<br />
::::I'm unsure about the correlation between YouTube videos and D&D Wiki content. Despite that, I believe it would be fair to assume that an author's deletion request can also be assumed to be a request for page protection. If we keep the 14 day grace period, then I would advocate for including into our policy. Maybe something like this could replace what is currently under [[Help:Deletion_Policy#Request_of_sole_significant_contributor|request of sole significant contributor]]?<br />
{{quote|The sole significant contributor ("SSC") of a page can request its deletion using the [[#Proposed Deletion|deletion proposal]] process. For the purpose of this criteria, the SSC retains this privilege until another user makes a significant contribution to the page. As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way. Any edit(s) deliberately marked as a minor edit is never considered a significant contribution.<br />
<br />
<s>If the SSC informally requests deletion, another user can propose deletion on their behalf.</s><br />
<br />
If when the SSC requests deletion the page meets other criteria for [[#Speedy Deletion|Speedy Deletion]], an admin may speedily delete it, but otherwise the 14-day period normally afforded for [[#Proposed Deletion|Proposed Deletion]] should be retained.<br />
<br />
During the 14-day period, an admin may exercise the option to protect or "lock" the page from further edits, so as to not stir up controversy regarding content that may soon be deleted. Regardless of protection, the corresponding talk page should be used for any warranted discussion or dissent instead of the content page itself, as with all deletion proposals.<br />
<br />
As content contributed to D&D Wiki is released under the [[Help:Legal|GNU Free Documentation License 1.3]], there is no inherent or special protection afforded to a page's content even if the SSC requests deletion. Nonetheless, it is courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of this deleted content regardless of why the SSC requested deletion.}}<br />
<br />
::::It's more complex than would be ideal, but this is the most succinct way I've found to address all points that have been brought up regarding this criteria. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:11, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: <s>I have never understood why “author’s request” deletions are forced to go through the fortnight grace period and previous attempts to get {{user|Green Dragon}} to explain have been futile. I’m completely fine with having “author request” be a valid criterion for speedy deletion. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:14, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</s><br />
::::::Actually, it seems like exactly what the scenario calls for. Complex or not, it needs to be written clearly and cover as many cases as possible, which I believe your draft here does. If this had existed prior to the current controversy, it would have been avoided entirely, I think. The 14 days was addressed earlier, and I see no reason for that part to change; it gives everyone, even the SSC, time to back-up the page, and time for others to discuss its removal. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Geodude, I feel you are implying there is no reason why. Let me be more straightforward with the reasons I provided.<br />
:::::::*14 days enables anyone actively using the content to download it without screwing over their character/campaign. Let's not forget that's the primary purpose of content: to actually be used. It's entirely possible someone has a tarrasqin character they are using in a monthly or biweekly campaign; deleting their race without warning not only screws them, but discourages people from actually using our site for its intended purpose.<br />
:::::::*14 days affords discussion of any matter an admin may not have considered with speedy deletion. E.g., the content is integral to a campaign setting or a ruleset, or there are dissenting but valid opinions on how "significant" seemingly insignificant contributions are, among other possibilities.<br />
:::::::Do you believe these reasons are not significant enough? - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You are correct, Guy; I was under the impression that the only reason was because the owner said so. Now that you’ve demonstrated that there ''are'' valid reasons, I’ve retracted my previous comment, and support your proposed changes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:37, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing another user other than the SSC to PfD a page. This is too vague, and it puts the ultimate responsibility in a place where I don't want it to be.<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing these pages to be speedily deleted. I don't like the idea of making admins go through the added stress and workload of checking histories, user contributions, reasons, etc etc in such a short time. As {{user|Marasmusine}} so well pointed out, these PfDs are not in good faith, so why pile all these tasks onto the people doing the work?<br />
:::::::::Why should the pages be locked? Our contributions specifically state "''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.''" So this seems to just be the wish of some user (without the experience) getting implemented. I don't see this as at all necessary, we have histories and a user base who have their own interests and that is not to make the SSC feel alienated.<br />
:::::::::I would expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::I can't say I agree with that either. Another user could simply come along during a time when the SSC was, say, moving and had no internet, and the page would be gone when they got back.<br />
::::::::::I also can't say I agree with that being the case for ''speedy'' deletion, but checking histories and everything else mentioned ''should'' be the kind of work that goes into this. It's also unfair to say that the requests for deletion that sparked this conversation aren't in "good faith," when not only is that statement undefined, but administration has also been acting in bad faith until yesterday. Proving intent is a sticky situation to get into, and short of pulling up private Discord conversations to prove the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do to argue it. Furthermore, because the SSC to the pages in question wouldn't keep her mouth shut like I asked, she's been blocked for a week. That means she can't renew her requests, only admin like yourself can reinstate the previous request if it is found to be valid retroactively.<br />
::::::::::I will agree, and fight for the notion, that pages should be locked when requested for deletion by a user who, until that very moment, was the sole significant contributor. Regardless of interest or intent, alienation is exactly what is happening right now. This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this. The licensing blurb should be fleshed out, yes. There should be a portion of user sign-up that presents the license and requires agreement, yes. The fact is that editing a page that was requested for deletion in an effort to block the request is pretty much the definition of "in bad faith."<br />
::::::::::Finally, before I go ahead and answer your other statement above, I'll state here as well that assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:18, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The now crossed out portion is already performed when appropriate, so I suppose there isn't any benefit to point out it's a possibility.<br />
<br />
I rewrote the paragraph regarding locks to be extra clear that it's just an option an admin can choose to employ if it seems beneficial. I can't edit the policy itself anyway, so I expect if an admin copies my entry that bit can be removed anyway <br />
<br />
One would "expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out"? To be frank, I'm not a fan of how that was phrased... I'm a volunteer here, not an intern or an employee. <br />
But anyway, if it is to be expanded somehow, what should be included? The wikilink there is meant to cover anything relevant to legal issues. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Good Faith" ==<br />
<br />
I've seen, I think, some controversy around deleting articles for the unspecified personal reasons of the authors based on "good faith." I'd just like to say that I think there's so much controversy because the policy in itself is not good faith. I think that, when a user tried to have their content removed, other users - myself included - take it as an attack on D&D Wiki. After all, it's akin - in my own words - to donating something to Goodwill and then stealing it back, usually - in my experience - because the checkout girl smart-mouthed you.<br />
<br />
This is to say that I don't really fault anyone for invoking this clause, because it's in the rules, but that the clause will always incite conflict. A user who invokes it will be seen as throwing toys out the pram, whereas users who try to see the article are - in my experience - seen as acting in bad faith to undermine the deletion request. And that, I feel is the problem: improving articles is being viewed in bad faith by default. A user editing an article, especially to improve it, should ''always'' be assumed to be in good faith. But that doesn't seem to be the case, here, nor do I think it has ''ever'' been the case even before this clause was codified.<br />
<br />
Further complicating - or, perhaps, clarifying - matters is that some users (I've seen [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] name checked a few times) are preserving this content themselves on user pages. I heard an unverified rumor that Varkarrus offered to backup "her" articles as a .pdf for other users to save after deletion. What this all means - to me - is that users still want this content around. They still view it as worthwhile and valuable. Even the authors did, or else why did they initially post it here? If the authors agreed to host it here, and users still want it, keeping it around should be good faith, not deleting it.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, my analysis of the situation and the clause is that the clause is not in good faith, nor is any invocation of it in good faith. It is - in my analysis - a bad faith move, and the clause should be revoked. At the very least, there were fewer arguments about "good faith" deletions before this clause...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:To clarify, the back-up of pages created primarily by Varkarrus in the form of a .pdf upon request is substantiated by Varkarrus herself via multiple deletion requests that include such an offer.<br />
:I agree with you here, but I'm curious what your alternative will be. Defining the term? Removing the clause entirely, to be replaced with what, if anything? You're absolutely right in your analysis, and I appreciate your use of analogy, personally. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:43, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Aye, sorry if it sounded like I was doubting you. Not the case at all! My alternative is, as I say, that "the clause should be revoked."--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vark's Good Faith ==<br />
<br />
Whether or not I agree with the "good faith deletion" clause, I don't think that Vark's case is good faith and I'd prefer if we could settle this in one place.<br />
<br />
I took a break and came back right as this was happening, so maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems Vark broke some rules in Discord, got warned, had an argument with CW (making a compelling point, from what I saw) and decided to leave D&D Wiki over it, taking lots of well-made articles along with her? From where I stand, it doesn't look like good faith; it looks like Vark effectively vandalizing D&D Wiki. As I elaborated above, part of the issue is that the clause seems to be interpreted as ''assuming'' good faith. If Vark had wrote "CW is a doo-doo-head" on a dozen articles, that would probably be interpreted as bad faith vandalism, so why shouldn't this be, considering it coincides with a heated argument? In fact, CW editing "Vark's" articles was itself considered bad faith on the grounds of their disagreement.<br />
<br />
I ''could'', as an admin, make that determination myself, but, even ignoring the issues of neutrality and lack of information, I suspect it would create more drama since the admin "team" feels more like a collection of city-states that one nation right now. So if we could just consense...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:49, 9 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Addendum:''' ConcealedWife has informed me over Discord that my timeline may be wrong and that Vark did not leave over their argument. If anyone could please fill in the gaps in the interest of determining if Vark's deletions were bad faith, I'd appreciate it :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:15, 9 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Deletion_Policy&diff=1182757Help talk:Deletion Policy2019-06-09T15:49:21Z<p>GamerAim: /* Vark's Good Faith */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>I know you said "be bold" but I'd rather keep the writing style consistent, if you don't mind making a few changes?<br />
<br />
#'''Sole contributor requests deletion.''' Please make it clear that this only applies to insubstantial articles, i.e. articles which were blanked shortly after creation and which do not qualify as "usable" articles. We do not delete articles simply by user request, as this could be deleterious to the people who use the site. This is one of the causes of a split that occurred among staff years ago :(<br />
#'''Speedy Deletion.''' I believe that [[Template:needsadmin]] is typically used to call out a need for speedy deletion, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Just something worth considering :)<br />
#'''Not English.''' I do recall that, under specific circumstances, non-English pages are allowed. I think the context was that a non-English campaign setting is allowed?<br />
--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You're right. It might be for the best that changes this bold weren't made without a discussion.<br />
:#I would like another opinion on this before adding it in and/or making this policy official. In my own time, I've seen several substantial articles deleted solely due to "Speedy deletion criteria G7" and "author request," and only one or two instances where this was denied. (Iirc at least one of those instances ended in nothing but a furious user and the retention of content that needed improvement, anyway. Doesn't seem to me like that goes well, but I could be wrong.)<br />
:#It is and can be, but even before I became an admin it was apparent to me that direct notification gathers a response more swiftly than that template. If you want it can be added in, but even if it follows precedent I don't really see it being as effective.<br />
:#To me this seems rather dubious. I would like another opinion covering this explicitly before adding it in. Do you know what campaign setting(s) to which this applied? Do you remember who else might have been involved in the instance(s) where a non-English campaign setting was allowed?<br />
:- [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"G7" should only be invoked in the case of incomplete articles, and maybe only shortly after creation (not sure about that last part). Completed articles should never be deleted under "G7." I don't think I wrote that clearly the first time, but either way GD can confirm this whenever he responds. I was referring to the needsadmin template as being used in place of the delete template, not suggesting that it's improper to ask on the Admin talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but again I don't think it really ''matters'' which template is used to summon a speedy deletion, just saying which one I've seen used for it most often. GD himself allowed the campaign setting to remain, as I recall, but I think it was subsequently deleted for normal reasons. If GD thinks it's a good idea, we could put a note saying to ask him for permission before adding non-English content. Otherwise, I'm fine with continuing our official English-only stance with no written exceptions.<br />
<br />
::I'm mostly sharing my experience with policy here, not any personal opinion of mine, though I do feel strongly about not deleting good content just because OP wants it removed. So long as GD clears up these points, I can't think of any major issues I have with your proposal. I apologize if I came off as dismissive of it just because I only shared suggested corrections!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:01, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::#I agree with GA here.<br />
::#I agree with Guy here that it doesn't seem all that effective. If anything its a preference but not a hard rule.<br />
::#I was involved in that. If I recall correctly, I asked GD about it when I happened upon a largely incomplete setting in Spanish(I believe) and it was deleted. I'm unsure about the name but I believe it was on his talk page.<br />
:::Other then that, this is well written and seems pretty comprehensive. I have no qualms about making this policy atm. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think this is pretty awesomely written, top notch. I've made three tiny additions that I'm hoping aren't controversial, but please anyone speak up or edit them constructively if so.<br />
::::Non-English campaign settings / OGL content are allowed (though, we've historically had a higher required standard of quality for them); We semi-recently deleted a [[Serpia (5e Campaign Setting)|foreign campaign setting]], but this decision was made because of the incompletion and poor quality. I do agree with GamerAim on their points, too, we should be discouraging the use of G7 best we can, within reason. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As it appears to be consensus, I've downplayed "G7." It now should read that it ''allows'' an administrator to speedily delete for this reason, but makes it apparent (hopefully) that this alone shouldn't constitute deletion of quality content.<br />
:::::The part about non-English content was reworked to not apply if a translation is included. In practice, any content not in English at all could effectively be immune to all the other reasons for deletion, just because it's very possible no active users of D&D Wiki may be able understand it. To me seems ''potentially'' very problematic, especially if it's in a language more esoteric than Spanish. If this still isn't lenient enough, I suppose the line can be deleted entirely.<br />
:::::GD's edit summary suggests he's already given this approval, though knowing he's busy it might've been a quick skim that missed finer bits like those brought up here. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm happy enough with this policy and all the latest editions, thus far. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:19, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you remember the articles you mentioned being deleted, would you please restore them? I remembered a specific example, and as per [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kaleid_Ooze_%283.5e_Creature%29&type=revision&diff=554355&oldid=554287 here] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&direction=next&oldid=556054#Please_remove_all_my_material_from_this_Wiki here], users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want it uploaded here anymore. I hope this clarifies things :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:03, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It is worth noting that in the six year period that has passed since the precedents you are citing, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent {{dash}} although clearly precedent differs, which is part of the reason I worked on this. Are you suggesting the '''author request''' portion again be changed?<br />
::::Oh. I fear I now understand why you edited that portion of this (still unofficial) policy. I assume every single time you see a page deleted by author request, you intend to "disagree" with that deletion?<br />
::::... Hopefully I'm jumping to false conclusions, but, I can't help but find that possibility very disappointing. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:45, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As stated elsewhere, it has been solid and longstanding policy not to delete work by author request unless it's unplayable anyway, been around a very short time, or otherwise exceptional circumstances. I don't care to go hunting for ye olde talk page that is miles long with argument over this policy, but the end state is - Nobody owns the work that is posted to D&D Wiki, and we rarely grant the optional courtesy of removing that work just because the author asked for it. Unless [[User:Green Dragon]] has had a major change of heart on this matter (in which case, we should discuss further), the policy should reflect this. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::And please don't passively berate people for making valid contributions to policy; GamerAim is trying to reflect and vocalise the longstanding position this wiki has very strongly held. Speculation and declaring your disappointment over imagined acts doesn't help anybody. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::To be clear, I'm only enforcing long-standing policy as SgtLion said. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and if discussion with GD decides that we should enforce user ownership on D&D Wiki, I will enforce our new policy. My only intent thus far is to educate newer and less-informed administrators (and other users) on our established procedures, not to enforce my own "interpretation" of policy based on a single edit from years before I even joined. The recent shift to improving our codification of policy is, well, recent. Older admins - even myself, a relatively newer admin - tended to have this understanding of the spirit and intent, policy and history of D&D Wiki. I'm not knocking any of the newer admins who came to D&D Wiki with beliefs that greatly differ from those D&D Wiki was founded on. I'm just saying that this is why many policies are buried away in old talk page discussions because we didn't always write down our consensus after it was reached.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I believe I was the first admin to start citing G7 on this wiki, although I admit I do not recall the context. It may have been a case where the author realized they did not want to release the content under GFDL. It can be a useful procedure for uncontroversial dispute resolution, and also those cases where a user makes an incomplete page then blanks it.<br />
::::::: Now, about these situations where there are old articles (perhaps very good ones) with a user request for deletion. I know historically we have not wanted to let go of these pages, and strictly these pages are not "owned" by the author. This part of G7 is about behaving with good faith, perhaps we should be respecting these users wishes. From a Wikipedia point of view, it's not a deletion process that should even go through a discussion. Having said that, G7 is ''very fragile'' - all it takes is another user to make a non-trivial edit and G7 is invalidated.--{{unsigned|Marasmusine}}<br />
<br />
::::::::Indeed you were, as I remember. I think all the points you present are valid. I do vaguely remember Green Dragon taking a specific strong stance on this that is in-line with what you've said. When I can find the relevant discussion page, or they get a moment to specify again, we can probably be clearer on the matter. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the discussion I was thinking of was [[User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages]], where actually Marasmusine was more involved than I. Though this was a time when courteous spirit played a bigger part than hard policy, so it's hard to imagine the same process going so smoothly anymore. As such, and due to conflicting precedents, I don't mind us going any which way on this policy, it seems whatever works, just as long as we make it clear. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 01:30, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::Looking at that discussion, it seems Green Dragon's concern is that we would be setting a precedent of breaking protocol to meet a user's demands; or starting a slippery slope of deleting things willy-nilly. It's because of the TierArea incident that I started using Wikipedia's speedy deletion critiera to show there is a framework for this. In the same way, we don't have to use the two-week deletion process for a page that just says "LOLOLOL" (criteria G3), unused redirects (criteria G6), material under copyright (G12), or the all too frequent "empty-but-the-template" pages (A3).<br />
:::::::::As for misusing the deletion tool, the point of being an admin is that they can be trusted to use their judgement to make exceptions when it betters the wiki. If there's a pattern of misuse, it's back to RfA with you :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, can we agree to put this policy as written into effect? I think the current wording of 'user request' sufficiently balances that we are under no obligation to delete articles under sole contributor request, but can where judgment allows. <br />
:Or do we want to adjust a clause to say that G7 is not valid where is likely to be controversial, or for substantial content (such as the deletion of featured articles or entire campaign settings)?<br />
:Either way, these few sentences seem to be the only part of contention; If it is, can we just exclude that section 'til we agree on it? I'm still seeing admins implementing deletions improperly as I type, so it'd be nice to a have a super clear policy to point to so we can all be on the same page. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 09:37, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I think the current version could be implemented, yes. As you stated, G7 is the only point of contention, it seems like, so I'll comment that part out and then move this into the Help namespace. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This discussion shows me how important it is to have this policy. Everyone has different perspectives about how to delete pages. If it's not written down, it leads to some very heated situations. But, in recollection, it has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page.<br />
:::I am grateful to work with a written down policy about page deletions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I am also grateful; your suggestion to codify our deletion policy after years of informal changes was a good one :) So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion now? An article can be deleted solely for that reason? I've no issue with this, as it seems your stance has changed over the years, but I worded it that way to be doubly sure before we write this in stone! If this is indeed the case, we should also go forward with deleting the Meadowlands campaign setting (again)?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::When I used the word "always" above, simply, I meant to use that word. I have never denied a deletion by authors request except for speedy deletions and deletions of licensing problems (which is in the best interests of D&D Wiki). I don't understand why users want their content to be deleted occasionally (it seems like a waste of their work), and my stance on this has not changed either. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::It was a yes or no question. Please say "yes" or "no" to "So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion?"--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yes, currently (and always) that is a valid reason for deletion. Note: '''sole''' contributor, not '''main''' contributor. We likely need more input from more users if we are to change this policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've been operating under the mentality of Wikipedia's CSD G7, which lets pages be deleted speedily upon request of the sole ''significant'' contributor. I take this to mean that a page's creator can request deletion even if another user has made edits like fixing grammar or formatting issues, adding/changing/removing categories, or other minor edits (minor in scope, not necessarily only edits marked as "minor"). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:14, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Thank you! If no one else does so first, I will make sure the wording on this page reflects that articles can be proposed and deleted for that reason. I will also make it clear that they cannot be speedy deleted for that reason under Wikipedia G7. I think Geodude is also right to ask if minor edits from other users void this deletion reason. I assume so, but clarity is always appreciated.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::"Sole ''significant'' contributor" makes more sense for the policy than just "sole contributor" since that does not explicitly state the interactions about maintenance and minor edits. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I-I think this means we've finally all agreed on and codified our deletion policy, speedy deletes and all. Do we celebrate now? This was a collaborative effort between many administrators and other users and I am pleased to have been a part of it \o/ --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:19, 11 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Should we be able to speedily delete pages with no content whatsoever? I'm not talking about pages which are simply sparse; I'm talking about pages like [[Hacker]] and [[Aequor de Chao]] which contain virtually no content at all. I'm mainly comparing this to Wikipedia's CSDs A1 and A3. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:58, 20 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I consider that a reasonable proposal. If no one objects, go ahead and make the appropriate changes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Seems fine to me too. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:10, 22 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It's been a few days and no one objected so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, here we go. Based on the discussion here and [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages here], as well as all the reading I've done and all the back and forth across the wiki recently, I'm just going to go ahead and outline all my arguments as simply as possible in an effort to just get this whole thing over with. I'm going to be blunt, but I'd like to say up front that I have no ill intent or desire to be rude or disrespectful. As I've said in my own user page and several other places, I consider you all my seniors in these matters and in tabletop, and I'd also like to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I'll number my points and try to be as organized as possible regarding this so people can respond easily. There needs to be discussion; talking through a problem is how it gets resolved.<br />
:1) Let me start by saying, right away, that this business of speaking entirely through text has been very messy. It's incredibly difficult to tell, especially when people speak in such a high-brow manner (as I am now, because of the atmosphere and perceived standard of discourse), someone's disposition. I would like to think I've simply been misinterpreting how admins feel, but my current perception is that Green Dragon, ConcealedLight, and ConcealedWife think users like myself or Varkarrus are peons not worth talking to or listening to, and our opinions, arguments, and emotions mean nothing, logical or not. There seems to be a great deal of bias being thrown around, and after Geodude told me that this wiki does not operate strictly according to written policy, like a bureaucracy would, my fear as only deepened in this regard. I don't want to remain in an environment where I feel as though my role is to not ask questions and pump out content that will then go on to not be respected, because that's exactly what seems to be developing here.<br />
:2) Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor. I can see there was some discussion about whether grammar or balance help was a significant contribution, but the fact that the term is undefined means that any admin can interpret it on a case by case basis and use the term to exercise power for power's sake. I would argue that this has happened on [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages, where there seems to be perceived value to the wiki in holding the work hostage by using ambiguous wording in policy and baseless personal desire to override goodwill and reason. The logical solution for the latter two pages would have been to honor the deletion request and simply recreate them with a new author, balanced and done as admin and other users seem to desire. Instead, both pages have been altered against authorial intent (which goes against the spirit and letter of the editing policy), and are being argued over and defended as if a little goblin has tried to steal gold from a dragon's hoard.<br />
:3) I'm concerned that it's possible for a user, regardless of rank or status, to swoop in when an article has been requested for deletion - not abandoned or purposefully put up for adoption - and begin editing it and cutting it up in an attempt to become a significant contributor to block the deletion request. It comes off as either petty or as a coordinated behind-the-scenes effort to hold a page hostage, and it's positively abhorrent that it's allowed or possible at all. In such a case where users are invested in such content, the logical solution, again, would have been to simply delete the page and start anew with a new author and a more collaborative effort based on the work of the previous author. Inspired works like that are created all the time, after all, and the license this wiki uses gives it that kind of wiggle room. (As an added note, there is no point during account creation until preparing to hit the "save changes" button where the license is presented. Even then, it is a tiny footnote, practically an after-thought, and nowhere is a user required to agree to the license in order to sign up or edit anonymously. Based on existing court cases involving places like Wikipedia, and precedents set, that puts this wiki on very thin legal ice.)<br />
:4) Finally, I would like to ask that there be an addition of some kind of definition for "significant" contributions and the like. If a page is comprised of the edits from the author to the tune of tens of thousands of bytes, and other community members have only fixed some grammar or changed a number or two, adding up to bytes numbering in the tens to low hundreds, I hardly see how that's grounds for calling them primary contributors on par with the author. Instead, it would make perfect sense if other users had helped define the page's flavor text, such as adding history to a race when the author had none, or adding new features or traits, etc. If such things were discussed in the talk page and the additions were made by the author, but the changes were discussed by multiple users and it was just the author who happened to be the one to update the page, that, too, would make sense to call a collaborative effort. The latter two pages I've linked do not fall under those cases - or didn't until this morning, which I've previously addressed.<br />
:I'm a creator here as well, just like Varkarrus. The volume of my created pages pales in comparison, but the fact remains that these rules affect me as well. As of yet, I haven't added anything to the wiki that either isn't already copyrighted material (submitted under Fair Use, of course), or that I'm extremely attached to as an original creation. That is not the case for Varkarrus, as I understand it. This wiki ended up being a great platform for organizing, editing, and publicizing original works, as well as those inspired by Wizards of the Coast content or folklore. The fact that such works are effectively being held down for no other reason than not wanting to let them go, or not wanting to do the work to recreate them in spiritual successor pages, baffles me to no end, and stifles any desire I had to become a part of this community and work with others to create collaborative and original content on the platform.<br />
:The behavior I've seen jump out of nowhere, which I am only invested in because I was invested in the content of pages that were requested to be deleted, has spiraled into discussions that are going nowhere, and reprehensible behavior on all sides. I know a lot of people can't believe someone would put this much effort into something solely for a thankless task for the sake of someone else, so I cite that I'm a creator with self-interest in the precedents set in this matter to ease such people's suspicions. I doubt that will be enough. <br />
:I've provided as much context and as many arguments as I can think of at the moment, but the fact is that I am mentally and emotionally fried after trying to fight this. I've been constantly angry for almost 48 hours, at what I see as great injustice at the hands of people in power who don't appear to care about the effect their actions are having on others, and it's not healthy for me. Since being objective and logical clearly isn't the only welcome talk on this wiki given the actions of other users recently, I feel like that is also important context. I can only hope that my tone in this message hasn't come across as angry; I'm tired, sad, exasperated, and concerned, but this is the only thing I can think to do to try and pull the discussion to one relevant location and try to talk about it as calmly and openly as possible. As the entire thing hinges on deletion requests and policy, this seemed to be the best place for it.<br />
:Please, I hope we can have a discussion about this and be rational. I want to see goodwill shown, not contempt or frustration, on my part or anyone else's. I just want this to end so I can stop talking about it, stop watching all these pages, and finally step away. It's just not in me to let it go until it's been resolved, and I can't consider something resolved if either or both parties simply square their shoulders, plant their feet, and refuse to change their minds or accept that they might be wrong about something. If I've misunderstood policy, or misinterpreted actions of other users - if I'm demonstrably wrong, I want to know so I can move on. I'd like to think everyone else here is the same. I look forward to working with you all in this matter. {{Unsigned|Max7238}}<br />
<br />
::In light of recent events, I agree that there should be added a better definition for "significant contribution" as it relates to this policy. I've already seen several users (including at least one admin) deliberately abuse this wording for what was obviously not the intent. I would seek to not let that happen again.<br />
::That said, I fear consensus on what constitutes a significant contribution would be difficult to reach. Even if consensus was reached, chances to me seem high that would be ignored by two or more admins. Even so, at the very least, I would have assumed most of us would agree that "significant contributions" do not include (1) any number of edits deliberately marked as a minor edit or (2) any amount of formatting/spellchecking that doesn't actually change the game effects or story elements of the content. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 15:52, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really wish I had more time but before it’s too late I wanted to say thanks for posting somewhere that brings it all together. I also cannot disagree with Guy. For the most part Max either but not here to argue Max. I also want to point out the shame of Vark’s work being unrecognized except for half a dozen pieces until Vark decided enough was enough and wanted to pull their Vark. Now it’s like a mad dash to edit each page. Where the gosh darn bleeping bleeping bleep was everyone the entire time she’s been a user in this wiki and only got feedback if it I was a race (because CL touches them all) or a FAN? I am flabbergasted by the behavior. It really makes it hard to believe the wiki deletion is being used in good faith by the wiki itself. Any how, only a couple hours a day of free WiFi to even log on for this. Cheers! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 20:42, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have two points to make. Firstly, we are also forgetting that this is supposed to be a ''speedy'' deletion. If we make it a 2 week thing, it leaves it open for someone to come in and make a big edit, nullifying the deletion rationale. If the page qualifies, it needs to be deleted ''straight away''. <br />
::::Secondly, the G7 proposal has to be made in good faith. Here are examples of G7 rationales (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion]): <br />
::::*"You're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content"<br />
::::*"you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with."<br />
::::*"you just screwed up and created a page with a title like User:User:Example"<br />
::::To this I also add:<br />
::::*You're making a page and learn that the site's license isn't appropriate for you (e.g. you wish to retain copyright).<br />
::::Asking for your page to be deleted out of spite because you've had some falling out with another user is ''not'' in good faith and is not a G7 rationale.<br />
::::Finally, I will add that it's Green Dragon's site and he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't deleted, regardless of guidelines. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's "supposed to be a speedy deletion"? According to our policy as currently written, "request of sole significant contributor" is the 2-week thing, [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help:Deletion_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=1092641 or as GamerAim put it, "the CfD process."]<br />
:::::Marasmusine, you are referencing Wikipedia's criteria again. This policy page itself was written so we don't rely on Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia's policy is designed for an encyclopedia of undisputed facts, not for original creative writing. We don't have G7. We have our own deletion policy, which was written and readjusted (and re-re-adjusted) over the course of months by several prominent users. <s>It would be nice if the page wasn't locked so I could correct some of the minor problems introduced through all these readjustments but that's beside the point.</s> If sole-significant should in fact be speedy deletion instead of the 2-week thing, then this policy should be edited to portray that instead of contradicting it.<br />
:::::If "good faith" is a requirement for "request of sole significant contributor," then that should be added to our policy as well. I am not sure if I agree with that personally. 'Good faith' seems extremely ambiguous when it comes to original creations, and too much ambiguity seems like it's part of the problem right now. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::First and foremost, if Green Dragon is the "ultimate arbiter" of what is done, regardless of any policy whatsoever, then why is there policy written at all? If it's a space for ''anyone'' to just do whatever they want, I'm ''pretty'' sure that should just be explicitly stated, and done so upon account creation or trying to edit the wiki at all. I'm also ''positive'' that I'll never create another page on this wiki, and that I'm about done editing anything but talk pages.<br />
::::::Second, can someone please direct the rest of admin to this page, so we can hear from them? ConcealedWife is having a field day with one of the pages, now, too. I could understand a user, or an IP, doing something like this, but if I'm expected to believe that what amounts to the staff of the wiki are allowed to conduct themselves in this way and not have it raise every red flag in the book, it would go a long way in convincing me that policy is indeed moot, and that this is simply Green Dragon's domain to do with as he sees fit... Including appoint friends to do as they see fit, so long as the only toes they step on don't belong to him.<br />
::::::Third, I was told to sit by and wait, and only respond if everyone else did first, but this is all just too much to watch. BigShot made an excellent point; you can just look at the history of some of these pages and plainly see that until Varkarrus wanted them gone, almost no one cared. Now there's uproar among a very small crowd to "save the pages?" Or do what, exactly? Why else would people, especially administration, suddenly pop out of the woodwork to start mass edits of a page that one of the users they're supposed to help protect requested to be deleted? After the behavior in the Discord, which I was told repeatedly is unofficial, despite being created and run by the same people, under the same name as this website, where I saw incredible amounts of contempt and disrespect being thrown around, seeing this illustrates perfectly that this wiki is not the environment to remain in if one is a creator in any capacity. Unfortunately, I can't request that my own pages be deleted, because then I'd receive the same treatment!<br />
::::::Finally, it's too late to rewrite policy for this. I'm sure it will only change after the fact, if it does at all. As written, right now, it can easily be interpreted to not only ''allow'' this behavior, but encourage it. And, based on the behavior I'm seeing, that makes a select group of people very happy to swing it like a cudgel at anyone in the way of them doing as they please. It's impossible to have a discussion about any of this, any of what's going on, and not sound disrespectful or "uncivil," but I can promise you I'm doing my best while being more angry and frustrated than I've been in months - or years. As policy stands, and as long as the aforementioned actions continue, I can think nothing else of this entire site but "get out as soon as possible."<br />
::::::When this is all over, regardless of the conclusion, you'll never see me active on this wiki again. I'm sure that will ''also'' make some people very happy - others maybe not - but I'm not even going to go as far as requesting my works be deleted for any reason. My pages here are either already copyrighted material, submitted under fair use, or cool ideas I had that I wanted to show to friends and thought the public might like. I'm nobody on this wiki, so I guess being blown off shouldn't surprise me. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 08:40, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Then this shows why "user requests deletion" ''should'' be a speedy criteria per how Wikipedia handles it. It either meets the uncontroversial criteria for deletion, or it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be deleted (as the author has published it under the free document license). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I've moved our replies to [[#Speedy deletion for author requests]], so as not to detract from the other points brought up by Max7238. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have a policy, that puts our work behind our actions. Saying that an admin really cares about a page so much as to circumvent policy is not what is happening. As admins we should not blindly trust users, so going through a list of pages to see if they match our deletion policy is not only impartial, it's also necessary. It's apparent that you have very little experience in situations like this, and your wish to never submit anything to D&D Wiki only makes me question your expertise more, and if you are really the right person to get ideas from. It's beneficial for us to work with users who have hurdled over even the toughest of situations, and not users without experience but some ideas. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Let me start by saying that I answered in the section below first. With that out of the way, I next need to say that I call em as I see em, and actions speak a lot louder than words. I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality. That quality did not always come from collaborative work. I already cited the relevant pages where, obviously, it became a collaboration and those pages should remain. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of her created pages are, or were, being edited like mad in what seemed to be clear cases of bad faith. One user had simply not seen the discussion and started edits, and I've already cleared that up in your absence. Another user completely threw out authorial intent, and went so far as to state in edit messages that they would pretty much completely rewrite a page, which had little purpose other than ousting the original author as the SSC.<br />
::::::::::I ''don't'' want to submit here anymore. Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat ''maybe'' twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::::::::::You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to. I'm a user of the wiki. I've been lurking for the better part of two years. I've got a degree in law, I specifically went out of my way to study digital law, cyber security, social inequality, and sociology (down to specifics like globalization) for my electives. I'm not here for some faceless entity over the internet to question who and what I am, because the fact is that it doesn't change the argument. It doesn't change that policy as written is flawed and rife with opportunity for abuse - abuse that has been occurring these past few days. If that policy does not change, then no, I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun. There's no point in getting invested in anything I post on this wiki that isn't being submitted under Fair Use, because the instant it's here, based on your actions and the actions of other admin, it's yours now. Even following the spirit of policy rather than the letter, only the Maralith and Lich pages should remain. That we're having this discussion at ''all'' should be plenty of evidence that there's a problem. It wouldn't go on this long if there wasn't!<br />
::::::::::It's beneficial for you to work with people who give a care. It's beneficial for a public resource like this to harness the potential of those who pass through it. It's beneficial for this wiki to welcome creativity and ''respect'' it. That's not being done right now. I care too much about everything, and I know that. I have a great deal of potential to ''help'' you (and you all, because written English is weird), and I want to. And creativity is ''not'' being welcomed or respected as long as it's within the realm of possibility for this discussion to occur. You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website." As it stands, it's now plain to see that that license is being abused to allow the hoarding of information under a single banner without regard for the creator's wishes. It's just there so you avoid being sued in as many situations as possible, and to be cited when you don't want to let a page go - that's what the actions are stating, loud and clear.<br />
::::::::::Please stay on topic, as personal attacks are a fallacy and have no place in intellectual debate. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:51, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I have already gone through all these deletion requests. Please give some examples of what you want, because this work has already been done by me.<br />
:::::::::::I have quoted our editing policy verbatim, bit I guess you didn't read it? Are works submitted to D&D Wiki to be edited mercilessly and copied at will? <br />
:::::::::::This is the first time I have had any contact with your user. Your contributions speak for your experience. It's not an insult, it's just as simple as looking through your user contributions.<br />
:::::::::::If you just want to submit your ''crap'' here then, frankly, I don't want anything to do with any policy that you would ''crap out''.<br />
:::::::::::Please supply references to your claims, and if you are doing research please don't take quotes from {{user|Marasmusine}} out of context. I already stated which users I prefer to work with. I don't think it's too hard for you to lay out some of this sweat so that we can get to the core of what everyone wants.<br />
:::::::::::And anyone who could get sued is the user who re-licenses an already oublished work. Please read and quote the GNU FDL (and start go deeper into all the discussions that have already answered this question). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::: *''"Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor."''<br />
::::::::::::There's also the matter of the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Light_Beam_(5e_Spell) Light Beam] page being reverted, despite the author being the SSC.<br />
::::::::::: *''"This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this."''<br />
::::::::::::I wasn't aware that what pretty much amounts to an informal blurb there was part of policy. Even if it is, it does not say you agree to using the license, nor does it say you lose the copyright to the work. It says "your writing" which could be anything from your flavor to whatever else, is vague and reminiscent of government policy passed with the express purpose of giving a government too much power over something.<br />
::::::::::: *''"...assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about."''<br />
::::::::::::Having just received a warning, from you, no less, only to return to this page and see that you are also engaging in such behavior: taunting or baiting me, which is a matter of interpretation (I interpreted your statement about experience to be such, but I can't warn you for it), and quoting users out of context, such as using my colloquial usage of "crap" to insult my propositions and position on this debate.<br />
::::::::::::If I was quoting Mara, especially out of context, I apologize. It wasn't my intention, and if I did, I didn't realize. Your preference is all well and good, but again, it has no bearing on the debate at hand. I've already provided sources in the original post for this particular section of the debate (sorry I neglected to create a new section, but I was also so flustered that I didn't even sign the original post). If you're looking for specific demands, it would be, to restate for the umpteenth time on this page alone, to have a clearer definition of terms used in order to close loopholes that may be abused by users acting to keep a creator from exercising their rights; and, to reinstate the deletion requests, and honor said requests, of Varkarrus where they were valid to begin with, such as, again, [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages and the aforementioned Light Beam page. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have already responded on these talk pages. Your reasons are wrong, but you are still trying to make them your argument here?<br />
:Again, read the GNU FDL, look at previous discussions, and you must also understand that IP addresses use the same terminology as if you had created an account.<br />
:You have less than 500 edits, and you are trying to implement a far reaching policy based on how you perceive the situation? Again, I would expect to be working with a more experienced user here, probably no less than 3000 edits.<br />
:You said ''"... I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun."'' so how is your work on this policy not 'throwaway crap'? It's not a misquote, it's your logic, actions, and words exactly.<br />
:Maybe it's because you have less than 500 edits, but it's not a debate to win and lose. Have you even read [[w:Wikipedia:Consensus]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Can you explain why they're wrong, since you want to state that so plainly? I think this is simply a matter of us having different definitions of what a "major contribution" is... Which is sort of the point of this entire discussion, isn't it?<br />
::I have, I have, I do.<br />
::Irrelevant, again. Someone with no edits could just as easily come in and read all this and have the conversation as someone with a million. The difference is whether they have the foresight to understand what the changes will do, and if I haven't demonstrated that yet, I'd be glad to.<br />
::Yes, that is what I said. It's good thing I'm not the one able to edit deletion policy, then, isn't it? Sarcasm aside, you know full well it isn't, you're just continuing to mischaracterize my statement and use it to try and bait me, which, again, no one can warn you for, so you're free to violate your own behavioral policy as you wish. If you find the time, please, look at the pages I've created. Maybe they aren't balanced correctly, which I readily admit, but that's why I was posting them and requesting review - but they aren't just the kind of thing someone could come up with off the top of their heads, throw on the wiki, and walk away thinking they were the greatest creator ever. None of my pages are nominated for FA or QA, and I wouldn't nominate myself unless I felt I deserved it, and I don't. I have a long way to go to be as good as the rest of those articles.<br />
::I hadn't no, but now I have, thank you. As it happens, there's more in there to support me, so I appreciate it. Based on everything I'm seeing right now, actually, you seem to be the only one who ''doesn't'' agree at this point. I'd like to continue going about convincing you, but you don't seem very receptive to conversation for some reason. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 23:45, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Speedy deletion for author requests==<br />
In regards to speedy deletion, I'm not sure I follow.<br/><br />
Several times now user-requested-deletion has been '''very''' controversial. Once when I was an admin, I deleted a page that had three reasons for deletion&mdash;including the user requesting deletion in good faith&mdash;but not only was that deletion overturned by another admin, it seemingly caused extreme ire towards me from that admin. Especially with the current vagueness of "significant contribution," the 14 day period allows there to be discussion if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then I don't really see the problem with keeping it for 14 days, especially if it can prevent unintended controversy and ire.<br/><br />
Having the 14 day grace period serves another purpose: it lets anyone who wants to save the content do so. I know {{User|Quincy}} has done so with several deleted pages, and I don't see a strong enough reason not to let that happen, either.<br/><br />
If my own perspective and judgement here fails to convince, Green Dragon commented on this very page back in October, as follows. "It has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page." - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:05, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:"Saving" content by making edits is a problem. When I made edits at [[:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)]] this was seen as a bad-faith attempt to negate the author's request. It is also a problem if an author wishes to withdraw their work because they misunderstood the license and wish to retain their copyright. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I should have been more clear. When I wrote "saving" content, I meant either (1) copying it into a text file for personal use, or (2) creating a copy in one's userspace with the author's permission. I agree that editing a page to negate deletion request is likely to be problematic. That is best discouraged, but in light of my preceding comments, I don't believe speedy deletion is the best way to discourage that. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I agree that there simply shouldn't be speedy deletion unless the page was unfinished and only had one contributor: the author. Other people may be invested in a page even if the author was unaware (someone could have it in their watch-list, using it for a character already, and you get no notification of the "follow"). I would argue that pages should be soft-locked to some extent while the discussion proceeds. It allows everyone, not just administration and/or the author to voice their take on things, consolidate context, save the contents of the page as a back-up or for Fair Use recreation, etc, etc. Between that and actually defining "primary contributor" or "major contribution" I think this page would improve vastly. If you lock the page, allow the discussion to proceed, investigate the history and talk page, and it can be determined using those new definitions that the author was, in fact, the primary contributor or the ''only'' contributor, it doesn't make sense for there to be extensive discussion. As I said, and as others have said long before me, in those cases, the page can just be created anew following the license terms and copyright law. If reaction videos on YouTube can be protected, and AMVs can be protected, there's no reason that a re-imagined page on a wiki couldn't be too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:38, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::There [[:Template:Locked_Page|is precedent]] for contributors requesting a page they created to be locked, of course. That seems like it could be a good option to employ.<br />
::::I'm unsure about the correlation between YouTube videos and D&D Wiki content. Despite that, I believe it would be fair to assume that an author's deletion request can also be assumed to be a request for page protection. If we keep the 14 day grace period, then I would advocate for including into our policy. Maybe something like this could replace what is currently under [[Help:Deletion_Policy#Request_of_sole_significant_contributor|request of sole significant contributor]]?<br />
{{quote|The sole significant contributor ("SSC") of a page can request its deletion using the [[#Proposed Deletion|deletion proposal]] process. For the purpose of this criteria, the SSC retains this privilege until another user makes a significant contribution to the page. As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way. Any edit(s) deliberately marked as a minor edit is never considered a significant contribution.<br />
<br />
<s>If the SSC informally requests deletion, another user can propose deletion on their behalf.</s><br />
<br />
If when the SSC requests deletion the page meets other criteria for [[#Speedy Deletion|Speedy Deletion]], an admin may speedily delete it, but otherwise the 14-day period normally afforded for [[#Proposed Deletion|Proposed Deletion]] should be retained.<br />
<br />
During the 14-day period, an admin may exercise the option to protect or "lock" the page from further edits, so as to not stir up controversy regarding content that may soon be deleted. Regardless of protection, the corresponding talk page should be used for any warranted discussion or dissent instead of the content page itself, as with all deletion proposals.<br />
<br />
As content contributed to D&D Wiki is released under the [[Help:Legal|GNU Free Documentation License 1.3]], there is no inherent or special protection afforded to a page's content even if the SSC requests deletion. Nonetheless, it is courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of this deleted content regardless of why the SSC requested deletion.}}<br />
<br />
::::It's more complex than would be ideal, but this is the most succinct way I've found to address all points that have been brought up regarding this criteria. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:11, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: <s>I have never understood why “author’s request” deletions are forced to go through the fortnight grace period and previous attempts to get {{user|Green Dragon}} to explain have been futile. I’m completely fine with having “author request” be a valid criterion for speedy deletion. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:14, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</s><br />
::::::Actually, it seems like exactly what the scenario calls for. Complex or not, it needs to be written clearly and cover as many cases as possible, which I believe your draft here does. If this had existed prior to the current controversy, it would have been avoided entirely, I think. The 14 days was addressed earlier, and I see no reason for that part to change; it gives everyone, even the SSC, time to back-up the page, and time for others to discuss its removal. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Geodude, I feel you are implying there is no reason why. Let me be more straightforward with the reasons I provided.<br />
:::::::*14 days enables anyone actively using the content to download it without screwing over their character/campaign. Let's not forget that's the primary purpose of content: to actually be used. It's entirely possible someone has a tarrasqin character they are using in a monthly or biweekly campaign; deleting their race without warning not only screws them, but discourages people from actually using our site for its intended purpose.<br />
:::::::*14 days affords discussion of any matter an admin may not have considered with speedy deletion. E.g., the content is integral to a campaign setting or a ruleset, or there are dissenting but valid opinions on how "significant" seemingly insignificant contributions are, among other possibilities.<br />
:::::::Do you believe these reasons are not significant enough? - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You are correct, Guy; I was under the impression that the only reason was because the owner said so. Now that you’ve demonstrated that there ''are'' valid reasons, I’ve retracted my previous comment, and support your proposed changes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:37, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing another user other than the SSC to PfD a page. This is too vague, and it puts the ultimate responsibility in a place where I don't want it to be.<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing these pages to be speedily deleted. I don't like the idea of making admins go through the added stress and workload of checking histories, user contributions, reasons, etc etc in such a short time. As {{user|Marasmusine}} so well pointed out, these PfDs are not in good faith, so why pile all these tasks onto the people doing the work?<br />
:::::::::Why should the pages be locked? Our contributions specifically state "''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.''" So this seems to just be the wish of some user (without the experience) getting implemented. I don't see this as at all necessary, we have histories and a user base who have their own interests and that is not to make the SSC feel alienated.<br />
:::::::::I would expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::I can't say I agree with that either. Another user could simply come along during a time when the SSC was, say, moving and had no internet, and the page would be gone when they got back.<br />
::::::::::I also can't say I agree with that being the case for ''speedy'' deletion, but checking histories and everything else mentioned ''should'' be the kind of work that goes into this. It's also unfair to say that the requests for deletion that sparked this conversation aren't in "good faith," when not only is that statement undefined, but administration has also been acting in bad faith until yesterday. Proving intent is a sticky situation to get into, and short of pulling up private Discord conversations to prove the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do to argue it. Furthermore, because the SSC to the pages in question wouldn't keep her mouth shut like I asked, she's been blocked for a week. That means she can't renew her requests, only admin like yourself can reinstate the previous request if it is found to be valid retroactively.<br />
::::::::::I will agree, and fight for the notion, that pages should be locked when requested for deletion by a user who, until that very moment, was the sole significant contributor. Regardless of interest or intent, alienation is exactly what is happening right now. This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this. The licensing blurb should be fleshed out, yes. There should be a portion of user sign-up that presents the license and requires agreement, yes. The fact is that editing a page that was requested for deletion in an effort to block the request is pretty much the definition of "in bad faith."<br />
::::::::::Finally, before I go ahead and answer your other statement above, I'll state here as well that assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:18, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The now crossed out portion is already performed when appropriate, so I suppose there isn't any benefit to point out it's a possibility.<br />
<br />
I rewrote the paragraph regarding locks to be extra clear that it's just an option an admin can choose to employ if it seems beneficial. I can't edit the policy itself anyway, so I expect if an admin copies my entry that bit can be removed anyway <br />
<br />
One would "expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out"? To be frank, I'm not a fan of how that was phrased... I'm a volunteer here, not an intern or an employee. <br />
But anyway, if it is to be expanded somehow, what should be included? The wikilink there is meant to cover anything relevant to legal issues. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Good Faith" ==<br />
<br />
I've seen, I think, some controversy around deleting articles for the unspecified personal reasons of the authors based on "good faith." I'd just like to say that I think there's so much controversy because the policy in itself is not good faith. I think that, when a user tried to have their content removed, other users - myself included - take it as an attack on D&D Wiki. After all, it's akin - in my own words - to donating something to Goodwill and then stealing it back, usually - in my experience - because the checkout girl smart-mouthed you.<br />
<br />
This is to say that I don't really fault anyone for invoking this clause, because it's in the rules, but that the clause will always incite conflict. A user who invokes it will be seen as throwing toys out the pram, whereas users who try to see the article are - in my experience - seen as acting in bad faith to undermine the deletion request. And that, I feel is the problem: improving articles is being viewed in bad faith by default. A user editing an article, especially to improve it, should ''always'' be assumed to be in good faith. But that doesn't seem to be the case, here, nor do I think it has ''ever'' been the case even before this clause was codified.<br />
<br />
Further complicating - or, perhaps, clarifying - matters is that some users (I've seen [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] name checked a few times) are preserving this content themselves on user pages. I heard an unverified rumor that Varkarrus offered to backup "her" articles as a .pdf for other users to save after deletion. What this all means - to me - is that users still want this content around. They still view it as worthwhile and valuable. Even the authors did, or else why did they initially post it here? If the authors agreed to host it here, and users still want it, keeping it around should be good faith, not deleting it.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, my analysis of the situation and the clause is that the clause is not in good faith, nor is any invocation of it in good faith. It is - in my analysis - a bad faith move, and the clause should be revoked. At the very least, there were fewer arguments about "good faith" deletions before this clause...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:To clarify, the back-up of pages created primarily by Varkarrus in the form of a .pdf upon request is substantiated by Varkarrus herself via multiple deletion requests that include such an offer.<br />
:I agree with you here, but I'm curious what your alternative will be. Defining the term? Removing the clause entirely, to be replaced with what, if anything? You're absolutely right in your analysis, and I appreciate your use of analogy, personally. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:43, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Aye, sorry if it sounded like I was doubting you. Not the case at all! My alternative is, as I say, that "the clause should be revoked."--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vark's Good Faith ==<br />
<br />
Whether or not I agree with the "good faith deletion" clause, I don't think that Vark's case is good faith and I'd prefer if we could settle this in one place.<br />
<br />
I took a break and came back right as this was happening, so maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems Vark broke some rules in Discord, got warned, had an argument with CW (making a compelling point, from what I saw) and decided to leave D&D Wiki over it, taking lots of well-made articles along with her? From where I stand, it doesn't look like good faith; it looks like Vark effectively vandalizing D&D Wiki. As I elaborated above, part of the issue is that the clause seems to be interpreted as ''assuming'' good faith. If Vark had wrote "CW is a doo-doo-head" on a dozen articles, that would probably be interpreted as bad faith vandalism, so why shouldn't this be, considering it coincides with a heated argument? In fact, CW editing "Vark's" articles was itself considered bad faith on the grounds of their disagreement.<br />
<br />
I ''could'', as an admin, make that determination myself, but, even ignoring the issues of neutrality and lack of information, I suspect it would create more drama since the admin "team" feels more like a collection of city-states that one nation right now. So if we could just consense...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:49, 9 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:GamerAim&diff=1182755User:GamerAim2019-06-09T15:34:10Z<p>GamerAim: Changed my greeting.</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div align="center"><div class="externalimage-holder" style="width:35%; align:center;">[https://discord.gg/dETbRhS https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/287667249261707264/408299454853021726/imageJan-31-10-32-02.png]</div></div><br />
<br />
==== Hello ====<br />
<br />
I'm GamerAim and maybe you've heard of me before. Hopefully, it's all good things, but I understand that there's a fair amount of negative statements about me circling D&D Wiki or associated communications channels. In particular, the users [[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]], [[User:ConcealedWife|ConcealedWife]], [[User:Guy|Guy]], [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] and [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] have made numerous assertions, implications or accusations of me.<br />
<br />
Regarding, ConcealedWife and Guy, I have chosen not to respond their statements. Not because they aren't worth a response, but because they've expressed a desire for me not to, which is why I'm setting the record straight here. Though I will respect their wishes, I do think it's unfair for other users - like you - to only see one side of the conversation and presume I'm such a bad person. If I really was as bad as they say (and their accusations can be vile), I wouldn't have passed two consecutive requests for adminship.<br />
<br />
The truth is, CW and Guy seem to have taken something I said the wrong way at first and decided to take everything I did then on as being hostile. I tried many times to assure them that my intentions were sincere, but they refuse to believe me and I cannot force their opinions to change. I'm sure there were times - in heated arguments that they started - that minor insults were thrown on both sides. We're all human and we can only be pushed so far when we're being insulted before we push back. I may not be proud of my humanity, but I will not deny that it exists. I will not deny that I dropped all pretense and called them as I saw. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I turned out wrong. But I choose to apologize and try harder next time. Unfortunately, some people just want to see the ill in you so I give those users some space. Please take the time yourself to look at how I've responded and under what circumstances. I'm sure you'll see that, although I am flawed, I am not as bad as they say.<br />
<br />
Varkarrus and ConcealedLight are a bit different. Whereas CW and Guy seem to have genuinely took offense to something I did, Vark and CL dislike me because I chose to tell them they were wrong. In Vark's case, it was a particular incident where she told me to do something along the lines of "get the stick out of [my] a**" and I warned her not to use that sort of language against another user. This was on another site. Her response was to try to get me demoted from adminship on ''here''. As I said before, I remained an admin in spite of half the community either spreading misinformation (either blatant lies, blowing small things up, or taking things out of context) or turning against me based on that same information. It isn't pleasant having to defend yourself under those conditions and I will admit I got heated, but those were conditions that should have ''never'' been allowed on D&D Wiki and I think it's unfair to judge me for them. Vark eventually left D&D Wiki and tried to delete all her contributions following a political outburst, proving my point - made in my RfA - that Vark only values her own agenda. I think she's a good person at heart, but doesn't know when to stop crusading against people who sleight her.<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight dislikes me because I have called him out for bullying other users, misuse of administration privileges, and I even warned him for misconduct and otherwise tried to reign in his use of power, which he took as a serious offense. He has gone so far as to compare me doing my job to bullying. He is, in my experience, a liar and a manipulator who tries to play the victim to avoid any responsibility for his actions. I once suggested that we impose a fair and harmless limit on administrators to avoid any theoretical corruption - which later turned out to ''already'' be an existing policy from Wikipedia - and he immediately accused me of trying to force him to provide personal information, which I never implied I'd do, and he'd acted like he hadn't already SHARED that information on multiple occasions. Suffice it to say, CL's complaints almost always root from a conjured affront to his person.<br />
<br />
Geodude671 is a special case. Geodude has betrayed me multiple times, but I never ''really'' held it against him. Geodude is...harmless, if kept in check. He has, in my opinion, a misguided view of what D&D Wiki should be and will pursue it relentlessly if given the opportunity. I truly believe there's no malice or ego involved, no personal offense taken from or intended towards me. But he is shrewd enough to take any opportunity to reduce his opposition. I am his opposition in many matters because I oppose his view of D&D Wiki, so he will support any attempt to reduce my reputation, influence or privileges. But in all matters that don't represent an opportunity to attack me, I do still trust him.<br />
<br />
And that's it, my view on the opinions others express towards me. In many ways, they represent change on D&D Wiki. A change in policy and in culture, that I believe is detrimental to the health of the site and its community. Some oppose me to get their way. Some, because I offended their egos. And others because they cannot see past their own burned bridges. I hope that, reading this, you understand that ''none'' of us are monsters. Just a broken system of too many disparate opinions...<br />
<br />
==== Contributions ====<br />
<br />
* [[Crustacheae (5e Race)|Zoidberg & the Macra Terror]]<br />
* [[Witcher (3.5e Feat)]]<br />
* [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] (Witcher/Supernatural inspired class that needs to be fully finished (though it's finished enough to use))<br />
* [[Eye King (3.5e Creature)]] (It's totally not a Beholder. See, it has ''12'' eyes and ''perfect'' maneuverability!)<br />
* [[Fallout (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)]]<br />
* [[OGC:Main|d20 Open Game Content Publication Transcription Project]]<br />
<br />
==== To Do ====<br />
<br />
* [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]]<br />
** [[3e SRD:Fly]]<br />
** 3e Creature template hyperlinking.<br />
** Sunrod.<br />
** Errata<br />
** Special ability header/redirect link consistency fix (e.g. sonic attack vs sonic attacks)<br />
* OGC<br />
** Fix [[OGC:Races]]<br />
** Swords into Plowshares<br />
** MSRD<br />
** Fallout d20<br />
** Immortals Handbook<br />
** [[The Champion (3.5e Class)]]/Rich Burlew<br />
** OSRIC, FG&G, DD<br />
** Preloads and template examples.<br />
* Convert [[Supernaturalist (3.5e Class)]] to Pathfinder.<br />
* That 5e race guidelines citations bit needs finished.<br />
* Website banner.<br />
* D&D Wiki magazine<br />
* FA criteria<br />
<br />
==== I Don't Need This Anymore But I'm Too Sentimental To Remove It ====<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align:left"<br />
|-<br />
! Weapon !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Con1 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Stat2 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Idea3 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | Exo4 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | d205 !! ALIGN="CENTER" | PnP6 <br />
|-<br />
|Wattz 1,000 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8/2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+1 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|AEP7 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6 || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Enclave || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10<br />
|-<br />
|Solar || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 6d10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Defend || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d6|| ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | — || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12<br />
|-<br />
|Alien || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d20 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d12|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 4d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10+3 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 5d10+30<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|- class="even"<br />
|Plasma || ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d6/2d8 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d12 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d10|| ALIGN="CENTER" | 2d10 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 3d6+2 || ALIGN="CENTER" | 1d20+10<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Awards ====<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this barnstar for transcribing [[Crime and Punishment]]. This entire transcription, and as a test bed for [[OGC:Main]], is highly noteworthy. Great work! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I award you this Barnstar for tireless dedication to upholding standards, great contributions, major efforts in transcribing OGC and more. Being clever, just, constructive, helpful and dependable are just some of the great qualities you have, and people definitely seem to appreciate that of you, both on the [[Special:Chat|chat]] and throughout the wiki. You are a good moderator, good dandwiki-er, and a good friend. Thank you~ --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{Barnstar|I give you this barnstar for your willingness to always help other users, for the massive amount of work you have put into transcribing and fixing [[3e SRD:System Reference Document|3e SRD]], and overall for being an awesome person. Thanks for being a great admin for D&D Wiki!--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
{{lionring|For being more respectful than many other admins, then remaining calm in the face of unjustified response. I give you this ring, such it may bring you some energy, comfort, and joy even for but a moment. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:03, 25 September 2018 (MDT)}}</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy/Archive_1&diff=1182616User talk:Guy/Archive 12019-06-09T00:42:30Z<p>GamerAim: /* Grudge */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="infobox"<br />
|-<br />
! style="text-align: center;" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[User talk:Guy/Archive|Archived<br/>Discussions]]<br />
|}{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== Grudge ==<br />
<br />
I just saw what you wrote about me having a grudge over the campaign (un)deletion debate, and now I think I understand the hostility towards me, if I had let off that I held a grudge...<br />
<br />
To be clear, I never held a grudge over that. I remember thinking, once GD ruled, that it was settled. I also vaguely remember getting the impression ''you'' held a grudge, so I might've distanced myself if I felt you were mad at me. I don't wanna gloat about being right in that case (you had your share of "wins" too), but I definitely didn't hold a grudge over an argument I "won." I have disagreed with you many times of interpretation of wording and definitions of things, but same with BSFM and Geodude, both of whom, despite having a troubled relationship with, I never held anything ''too'' personally in either case. We all have opinions, we share them, and GD makes a decision.<br />
<br />
Yeah, I get this looks kinda like me trying to gloat and/or just be contrary, but I really did feel bad seeing that you thought I held a grudge. Not because "oh no people think bad of me" but because "oh no he thinks I think bad of him." I promise, that really ain't the case! Not before, and certainly not now. I'm sorry I made you feel that way; 'twas a tense time and I clearly didn't make the effort to clarify my appreciation. I hope that knowing this gives you some peace of mind and helps bridge the gap between us <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:42, 8 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1181900Talk:Main Page2019-06-06T18:28:15Z<p>GamerAim: /* Page Appreciation */ Added provisional support for BSFM's current implementation.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1181897Discussion:Discord Policy2019-06-06T18:24:09Z<p>GamerAim: /* ~ BigShotFancyMan talk contributions 13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT) */ Added an agreement with one of BSFM's points.</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
<inputbox><br />
type=commenttitle<br />
break=no<br />
align=right<br />
minor=true<br />
nosummary=true<br />
hidden=yes<br />
buttonlabel=Add New Comment<br />
default= ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small><br />
page={{FULLPAGENAME}}<br />
width=45<br />
</inputbox><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING ABOVE IT --><br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>01:21, 8 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
The basis for policies on D&D Wiki's [https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV official discord server] has been layed out with [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Official D&D Wiki Discord Server Policies Referendums|this discussion]]. Consensus may change, so please include any policy referendums for the discord server on this page. Any policy discussions must take place here, since policy discussions on discord do not have any bearing for the server.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small>Official Discord Server link location<small>14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I feel the link to the D&D wiki's discord server is a little hidden away right now. It took me a while to find the community portal on the main page; I don't think I'd ever noticed that link before. Meanwhile, the currently very underused Tavern Chatroom is displayed on the navigation and on the main page. Personally, I think the link to the Tavern Chatroom could be outright replaced with the link to the discord server, though I have no problems with it remaining where it is. It's not unusual for a wiki community to have a discord server that's proudly displayed with a large logo; take for instance the [https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/D%26D_5th_Edition_Wikia D&D 5e wikia].<br />
<br />
I should say why this could be important. When looking at the tavern chatroom logs, some of the most recent messages as of this writing are variants of "is anybody there?" spread out over a week. Most recently, a newcomer asks if the Tavern is always this empty, and then they're given the link to the official discord.<br />
<br />
Since a newcomer's first experience with trying to join the D&D wiki community's chatroom will almost certainly be the tavern chat (as it is more prominently displayed), they may get a false idea of how active the community is, which may discourage them. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
* [https://i.imgur.com/faltlSA.png A screenshot of the tavern chatroom messages I was talking about]<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>14:43, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I too have thought this for other things. I am use to communities prominently displaying a Discord server link as well, along with their other pages though. Maybe a bigger discussion if those get brought up.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) <small><small>05:40, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Something like this? [[File:Discord Logo.png|75px|link=https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV]] We could add this to the [[Main Page]], as well as on the sidebar (if anyone knows if its possible to add an image to [[Mediawiki:Sidebar]], otherwise it can be added below it like the FB was before) if we can agree on doing this.<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>07:49, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
That link is beautifully! Hope others agree with its addition to the sidebar.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>09:21, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
i agree<br />
<br />
== {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} <small><small>10:13, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Looks good to me. Let's add it.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>10:28, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
This looks like consensus to me, so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small><small>12:02, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Awesome! Thanks<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>13:23, 19 February 2019 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Announcing Featured Article Nominees in the #Announcements channel'''</big></big><br><br><br />
As someone continually wanting to drive traffic to these pages, are there objections to sharing a link to the FA page letting Discord users know these discussion are waiting for input. At the very least, posting there once a month-I'd prefer to ping @everyone when that happened. Extra posts would be to put out a new article has been nominated, but @everyone wouldn't be used for that, just the (proposed) monthly one. So yeah...thoughts?<br />
<br />
:That seems like a reasonable use for the #announcements channel as it doesn't get much use. Though I believe it should act as more of a feed when a new article is added and only pinging the relevant system as not all users will find updates for other systems they don't know interesting. Other then that I support the general idea. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:03, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::No objections here. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:38, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Good Idea to use relevant system pings CL. I’ll post in announcements soon and if someone thinks it’s not good I’ll adjust. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
===Political Discussion on the Server===<br />
{{user|RedHawk007}} brought up that political discussion is something that tends to spark arguments and flame wars, and he proposed implementing a "no politics" rule on that basis, and other users have expressed similar sentiments, which I can understand and appreciate after myself having gotten into a heated political debate a couple of days ago. We already have a rule that says "Be respectful of other users and their opinions" and "obey the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]", but this becomes a really easy rule to break with how divisive and black and white politics has become. What are people's thoughts on implementing this "no politics" rule, or if this becomes something that some people really want to discuss, adding a "politics quarantine" channel so that people that don't want to get involved never have to look at it? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm personally ok with political discussion. But I've seen on the discord how people probably have muted the discord or never looked to it because of political discussions that dragged on and on. If it makes people ''that'' uncomfortable, then I'm also ok with "no politics".--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
: A quarantine sounds like a good idea. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are important and i think the arguing won't end just because politics is forbidden to argue about. Everything can be political, after all, so it just becomes a veiled discussion about something else with politics at heart. Like arguing about if certain races are chaotic evil or not and talking about the ingame consequences of issues like this. "If Kobolds are evil by nature, i think genocide against them is justified." Better to have something that can contain the various discussions that can be safely ignored. --[[User:Kara|Kara]] ([[User talk:Kara|talk]]) 13:18, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While I am fine with polite discussions, some users have shown that they simply cannot maintain a civil conversation. Chat Moderators should be within their right and not afraid to hand out warnings or mutes for conversations that threaten to get out of hand. Toxic behaviour has already driven several people out of the discord server and I'd hate to see more go because of a few bad apples. The server should first and foremost be about D&D - all other topics have second place and they shouldn't threaten the integrity of the wiki itself. I'm not a fan of 'quarantine' channels as "#adult topics" (I believe it was called that) simply did not work. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This is going to sound shocking coming from me of all people, but I fully agree with the idea of forbidding any political discussion. Quarantine channels, in my opinion, don't work. As pointed out before, some of us can't discuss things with civility, and I honestly don't think a quarantine channel would really help that much in that regard. It would just keep all the incivility in one area, which would just cause it to inevitably spill out into the rest of the server. The last thing we need is this server suffering the same fate as the previous. To those who want to discuss politics and support the idea of a quarantine channel: That's what DMs are for (direct messages, that is. Not dungeon masters. *winkity wink*) --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm frankly surprised this is even a controversy or a debate. I'm all for a "no politics" rule. If people want to whine and moan about IRL politics, then there are a million more relevant places on the internet to do it than, y'know, an apolitical hobby-related chat for discussing games. Or even better, they can get off the freaking computer for once in their lives and try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber. Just saying. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber." *combination of my laughter from how you wrote that along with some MLG airhorns* --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Okay so I was fine with banning political discussion at first but I've changed my mind. Better to create a quarantine channel for it. Because inevitably, ''something'' is going to come up where a user needs to voice their concerns, but can't because their concerns are "political." For instance, discussing whether or not hate speech should be banned on the discord server? That's a political discussion. So, no. There should be a ban on uncivil / bad faith discussion instead.[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
There's a problem with a ''blanket'' ban on political discourse, that I just realized now. The thing is, it's impossible for anything to be truly apolitical. And frankly, D&D as a hobby hasn't been apolitical for a long time. Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical? And wouldn't banning discussion on that, in turn, be a political statement? Now, I'm all for a ban on, say, whether or not human lives have inherent merit; frankly that shouldn't be a discussion anyways. I'm an ardent supporter of banning hate speech ''in general.'' I also feel that some people [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 make arguments in bad faith] and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense. But, there are going to be times when people will have ''legitimate concerns'' and banning them from raising those concerns on the basis that it's "too political" is, in itself, a political statement. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:No, not everything is political unless you subscribe to some preposterous culturally marxist notion there is no place for a non political private space nor such a thing as a political non-combatant. I find it kind of strange and disturbing that people seem to try to push that mentality these days. <br />
<br />
:"Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical?" - That is a loaded statement with a debatable premise. And no, demanding political change - which is what you are implying you wish to do - is by definition not apolitical.<br />
<br />
:Now you've brought "hate speech" into the conversation. I am ardently opposed to banning hate speech, because the problem with banning so-called "hate speech" is that restricting the voices of a handful of people you disagree with is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to abuse in the name of safety. In my experience, banning and punishing any form of speech is almost always used by dubiously motivated individuals to silence opinions that they subjectively deem "improper" which is not only immoral but a form of intellectual tyranny.<br />
<br />
:"I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense" - Yeah, because those people who take the bait are idiots. No-one is forced at gunpoint to engage into an open, public conversation. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: So... wait, just to be clear... you're saying you want to ban political discourse, but not hate speech?? Also, calling those people who take the bait "idiots" is ignoring how insidious bad faith arguing can actually be. Again: see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 The Card Says Moops]. '''Very''' relevant. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my stance. Hate is an emotion. The "Hate speech" buzzword can be invoked for anything tangientably related to an emotion. What is and is not a political statement, on the other hand, is objective. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Well, if you've got a problem with the hate speech ban, go take it up with rule 1 on the D&D wiki discord server. Start a discussion, try and get it removed, whatever. I ''really'' don't think you'll get much support for that, though. I don't see why we should unban hate speech but not [[Discussion:Updating the Foul Language policy|cussing]]. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I am against a banket ban on political themes, just since that will make a very many users have a directly bad experience with the server when they "accidentally" receive a warning.<br />
:::::I propose that we amend the admin roles on the server, to give the role the power to demand that a topic stops being posted when it's political (per the admin's choice). If the conversation continues, then of course we would use warnings. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::: I don't trust that discord admins would necessarily be able to be "partisan" here, deciding which topics do or do not fall under the blanket ban. Rather, a conversation that has the ''potential'' to be heated can be moved to a quarantine, and then only step in if the conversation ''does'' become heated. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I do trust discord admins to decide when a topic is getting out of hand. They were elected for a reason - to uphold the face of the wiki. Topics inciting hate have no place here and neither do heated discussions in which half of the participants act like children. The DanDwiki is not your personal platform for spreading your political agenda. The only 'Quarantine' that exists here is your DMs. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I think it's pretty easy to tell when a topic is "getting out of hand". It's not rocket science. Heck, and I'm saying that as someone who has probably made some of the most incendiary comments on the discord and caused some discussions to actually go into that "getting out of hand" territory. However, I'll bite - Maybe a "blanket ban" is a bit too much, but if I swear if I see another spat over alignment and racism again... --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Okay so thing is, what you just brought up is EXACTLY the reason WHY a blanket ban won't work. To recap: <code>Off-topic comments removed.</code> So, a blanket ban on political discourse would essentially be saying "Hey, Vark, this concern you're having? That you feel something is (admittedly in this case, mildly) racist? You're not allowed to talk about it," which in turn ''is a political stance.'' It sets a scary precedent. What if something more overt happens in the future? Say someone creates a page that's blatantly racist (like, say, a race that strongly resembles a caricature of a real-world race) to some, but maybe just enough people (which may include the creator) don't immediately realize it's racist and it slips under the radar. Would they not be allowed to raise their concerns over it? Personally, I believe they should, as long as the argument remains civil. Atmittedly, my memories of the argument are Kinda Fuzzy by now, but during that argument I repeatedly tried to find a good compromise. I also tried to understand why my opponents were opposed to my concerns, and was upset because I had multiple concerns and I felt they were being ignored. I was also upset because a lot of people were making fun of me for my concerns, and the whole argument was being treated like a sideshow. In the end, I did appeal to their reasons ("because D&D lore") by using the exact terminology from the D&D race descriptions of alignment, where the strongest wording used is "tends towards X," which means I got exactly what I want, and in a way that I guess was fine with everyone else. A compromise, but ''even better,'' really, since Everyone Wins, No Concessions Needed. That would not have happened if I was not allowed to raise my concerns. The race would still use wording I disliked, and I would be unable to do anything about it. It's impossible to make this space apolitical because right wing and left wing ideology influences A LOT of what we say, do, and believe. If you put right wing and left wing people in a room together, those ideologies are going to clash, even if the topic of politics isn't ''explicitly'' brought up. So, if you want an echo chamber / safe space where you can avoid left wing ideology, you'd have to go to a community completely devoid of left wing folks. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:56, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your entire argument became a moot point as soon as you mentioned 'civil discussion'. You are the first person to come to mind when I think of "People who cannot keep a discussion civil". The fact that you are writing out the entire Marilith discussion again in an attempt to push your original points in said discussion speaks for itself. This is not a platform to push your agenda, this is a discussion about politics and D&D. If people can hold a civil discussion about politics, that would be cool. The sad truth, however, is that some users (including yourself) cannot remain civil in a discussion, turning the whole thing into a 'sideshow' as you call it. That's the last I'm willing to say about it as there is no reasoning with you. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::::: I just went back and reread the whole "hate speech" debate. Which wasn't even a debate I wanted to ''participate'' in. It's true, the part where I dismissed MSO's argument by posting a screenshot of how I had him blocked WAS pretty rude of me. I apologize for that. But, like, that argument WAS getting heated ON both sides, and it SHOULD have stopped a while ago. But in terms of actual ''attacks?'' that was on you guys. I never attacked you, or Redhawk. The worst insult I gave either of you was when I said "yea you're right, debating with someone whose views aren't gonna change is a pretty silly waste of time" which was as much an attack on myself as it was on you. Beyond that, I never called you toxic, or immature, nor accused either of you of being able to converse like a normal human being. The FACT that protecting hate speech apparently even WAS a topic of discussion led to a user feeling uncomfortable and leaving the discord, because as it turns out, extreme right wing ideology tends to make people feel unsafe. As such, I do feel there should be a quarantine so people who don't want to participate can mute the channel, and moderators should step in when discussion gets heated. Maybe we can figure out what specific topics are so incendiary that they shouldn't even begin? As a potential starting point for any such list I'd agree to not to bring up punching nazis, egging islamaphobes, or eating the rich if we as a community can also agree to not to defend viewpoints that fall under the "content of a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nature" part of rule #1 of the discord, which would include "protecting hate speech." Anyways, since that's the last you're willing to say on the topic, I'm fine with accepting my culpability in the heatedness of that particular discussion. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:39, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I really have no idea what type of consensus is being discussed. It seems like some users have an agenda which we are not discussing. This discussion is about how we want to, if and when, offer a policy to censor posts on discord. The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::"The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat." This is the proposal I wholly stand behind. Maybe we can start a fresh discussion by putting the indentation back to one with that proposal? -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 13:23, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
: "...women being discriminated against in D&D meetups..." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFGVbJQIy0 As the ancient Hawaiians used to say...] --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 23:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: Just because you've never seen it (or chosen to ignore it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. all. the. time. [https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+experiences+with+D%26D+site:www.reddit.com&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbrZ2d0JzhAhVCpIMKHUaiDo0QrQIoBDAAegQIBxAL&biw=1760&bih=886 A quick google search turns up thread after thread of women talking about their experiences with sexism over the past decade]. So there's your citation. Sure, it's not a universal experience, but it's an all-too common one. That's not the topic of discussion right now, though. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"That's not the topic of discussion right now, though" Then why respond in the first place? --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Please, neither of you continue this conversation thread. This is a discussion about whether users should be trusted to remain civil with one another when discussing political topics, not about discrimination of any sort in the TTRPG community. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Please, stay on topic and help the community reach a consensus. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 01:02, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I understand. My apologizes. --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with {{user|Green Dragon}}'s words on this. My thoughts and feelings but in much less words. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> <small><small>13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Discord Moderators'''</big></big><br><br />
Sort of in line with {{user|Geodude671}} post above, moderators. Admins are automatically bestowed with moderator rights. Mods would help make sure respect is given to users. Geodude is the most available admin/mod on the Discord, followed by CL then myself. Even with some of our availability we really only answer SRD/balance questions. I think using the Wiki to have a Request for Moderator (or whatever is deemed) would be helpful. Users like {{user|ConcealedWife}} are already trying to do these things on Discord, and perhaps being a mod would bestow help to those trying to keep the peace.<br />
<br />
:I've actually been toying with this idea for some time now. While I'm in no way experienced enough (nor do I currently aspire) to be an admin, I would be interested in becoming a discord chat moderator. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I think this would be very beneficial, though we'd need to work out specifics. I personally think {{user|ConcealedWife}} and {{user|Yanied}} would be good candidates for the first non-admin moderators. <br />
:Should Discord moderators also get mod privileges in the tavern chat? It's probably not necessary with how low activity in the tavern is, but it could be nice to have. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I don't see why not. I can see how that would be helpful. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that this makes sense. To grant users these rights we will need a similar process to an [[RfA]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Chanting: "rFm! rFm!". All jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind being the first to go through this process once we reach consensus. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 07:21, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I can get behind this protocol. But the specifics will need to be fleshed out before anyone gets too excited. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::went bold and created [[D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation]]. Hopefully the discussion page can be a good place to discuss criteria and considerations for this process. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 09:00, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Just to sorta start the ball, I would suggest that a mod be able to mute users and change roles. Kicking and warning users, and creating/deleting channels might be better reserved for admins. When I picture a mod, I imagine someone to quell disagreements and intermediate. And I don't mean to imply that admins are better people or have better judgement than what a mod would. Just the idea of mod from my experience has monitored chat. I am sure other servers mods can do more, which feel free to discuss. I am just pushing the ball. wooooooooooooo! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:18, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Further pushing that ball after it's been still for a bit, I feel a chat mod should do just what is relevant to chat. So I don't find the monitoring of roles a necessary role for them, just the ability to mute users or maybe issue limited warnings (though it is understandable if that is not possible).--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I am against this on a number of grounds:<br><br />
1) Especially with me now in the Discord (P.S. GD I need admin role there whenever it's convenient for you), there are plenty of admins in the server. Me, CL, Geodude and BSFM are all active daily.<br><br />
2) Giving special roles to users was one of the things that cause strife in the other server. Giving special privileges? I think that sends the wrong message.<br><br />
3) Just to compound the two above, there is no ''need'' to give special moderator privileges to users just for the sake of it.<br><br />
4) Frankly, CW's involvement in this sends the wrong message IMO. I quite honestly worry about the implications of her and CL both having moderation privileges, given their past history. But I will concede part of this might be latent distrust over my history with CW. If anyone believes that is the case, ignore this point.<br><br />
5) I also worry about the precedent this sets, considering that the Discord server's "constitution" limits the servers' autonomy and ability to set its own policies. In my opinion, this would be a gross overstep of the server's bounds. Though the ramifications would theoretically be contained to Discord, history has shown that too much power in Discord has the side-effect of harming D&D Wiki. We've all witnessed this, unfortunately :( --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that there are indeed plenty of admins in the server already.<br />
:I'll take this opportunity to say that, based on continued patterns of "lashing out" over Discord (both the current server and its precedent), I believe GamerAim should not be made an admin on the D&D Wiki discord server even if he retains admin status and good graces on the wiki proper. To be entirely candid, there is no one I would trust less with the privilege. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 18:06, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Guy is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but there has been no "lashing out," unless Guy means a single heated discussion we had over a miscommunication. There has otherwise been no real incidents of note before or since. In fact, I was quite open with the server in confronting the elephant in the room and we all agreed to move forward in pursuit of a trusting relationship. I understand that Guy and I have a history of distrust, but as I said on Discord, I look forward to rebuilding our trust in each other. Naturally, I will otherwise avoid debating this particular topic (my adminship) unless requested, so as to avoid a conflict of interest. I know that we all have baggage, and I hope that this move will show that I am willing to turn over a new leaf and engage with my honored privileges as a trusted instrument of the community I love.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I cannot help but say Guy's concern is valid but this is a conversation about moderation so please keep on topic. GA please make your request for administrative privileges through another topic or more preferably directly to GD. In the interest of continuing the conversation on moderation, you do not have to respond to this message. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While there are normally several admins active at once and can deal with issues that arise, I will highlight the difference in timezones that I experience being in Europe as oppose to the United States. I often find that I'm on the only admin available until the day rolls on quite a bit and then administrators in the US of which the majority are, come online. Thus, in the event I am not available I believe it is reasonable to take on a chat moderator in order to increase the coverage and availability of the team. At the same time, I don't feel it would be fair to take on just one person in a test capacity and so I'll recommend that we take on two chat moderators, ideally one of them being in the European/Asian time zone range. This can be done initially in a test capacity and we can review their performance/ effectiveness after a month or two. In terms of what privileges they should have, I believe role management in order to verify users but also apply the Muted role to prevent spamming as well as naming management in order to enforce the wiki name usage. While I can see a case being made for kick/ban privileges the Muted role (which prevents users from interacting with the server and its channels) serves to put a bandaid on any issue for administrative review later and prevents a rogue moderator from doing something malicious like kicking/banning all other users. How does this sound? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with you as well as Yanied's comment above. The ability to hand out (limited) warnings as well as a mute should be enough to keep the chat clean until an administrator shows up. I also agree that more than one moderator should be put into place for a test. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 04:51, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::There is still the matter of our user base being majority American and also well-behaved. I've not been active until recently, so I will refer to an admin I can trust there - like BSFM or Geodude - as to whether there have been many incidents while they were away. I think it's important to hear about the actual need for chat mods, first and foremost.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 04:49, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::The Discord simply needs a little help assigning roles, and a back up in case of spam. That’s why I don’t think mods being able to warn is necessary, and would hope that would ease some of Guy’s concerns. Quincy, Geodude, CL, Myself, And GamerAim I think do a good job but as people with RLs, some mods to assist in times we may be DMing, with Family, or saving the world, a mod to handle mutes and roles would be :Fire: <br />
:::And again, I don’t think that admins are any better of people that makes them allowed to warn but it provides to overlap and consistency between Wiki and Discord. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:48, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::You make a good point about verifying users. While I still don't believe it to be a huge issue, I would not have an issue with chat "moderators" that served this capacity if you believe it to be important, though I do believe that warnings and muting should be reserved for administrators, as it would be on D&D Wiki.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:23, 6 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181896User talk:Admin2019-06-06T18:21:05Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::because it’s a highly subjective topic and futile effort to prove. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:48, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's not subjective or hard to prove if we have proof of users declaring some form of relationship. In the instance of CL and CW, this has been affirmed by them both on multiple occasions. In this case, the relationship has been proved. I see no harm in making this policy, so long as it's clear that only confirmed relationships apply. Heck, I'll even concede that I shouldn't be allowed to administrate SgtLion.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Edit: I'd like to note that this isn't about CL and CW. I only just returned and don't know anything about CL and CW and Vark, so this isn't in response to anything anyone did recently. I'm just supporting a user/admin who brought up the same concerns that I did by providing a simple, no-harm policy to allay any concerns users may have.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: As I requested on my talk page please avoid discrediting my judgements due to perceived information about my personal life as I endevor to keep it separate from my administrative duties and remain lawful neutral in my application. I should not have to share such information about myself in order to ease your own concerns about my judgement. This is the last I will say on the matter unless a futile policy like this see's concensus. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 15:37, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Please do not refer to the honest concerns of other users and admins as "futile policy." If you'd like, I can make a serious inquiry into your conduct, which present policy would prevent you from being involved in.<br />
:::::::::With that formality out of the way, this is not about you, personally, CL, despite whatever importance you may or may not blatantly express about yourself. I am more than happy to post the public record of this "perceived information.". Nobody is forcing you to share anything - you have already shared this information and it can be corroborated if you insist that it isn't true. To be frank, the more defensive you appear to be, the more I'm inclined to believe that you've done something wrong.<br />
:::::::::And so, to be clear: you have been accused of nothing except disrespectfulness towards other users. The policy would apply to all admins where information regarding their relationship to another user is already a matter of public record. No one would be forced to share anything. That your relationship is already a matter of public record is beside the point. Now, I do apologize if you feel as if your privacy is being invaded, but you shared this knowledge freely, and your presumably unwarranted defensive gestures only serve to point blame at you where otherwise none would be.<br />
:::::::::So, again, I see no reason why any innocent, humble administrator would oppose stepping back in a rare case of administrating someone that public record shows he has a relationship with. But then, I would not ''dare'' make assumptions about the character of my fellow administrators :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:58, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I agree with {{user|ConcealedLight}} that a neutral point of view is necessary for an admin, and there are no restrictions about who they should interact with. This is a core policy already, [[w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::NPOV is about maintaining a neutral point of view in articles themselves. Since D&D Wiki is not a factual wiki, that policy is not relevant. The policy you are thinking of is {{w|WP:INVOLVED}}. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:46, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Okay then, as per NPOV, it seems that BSFM and I both agree that CL is unable to administrate matters involving CW, and I am unable to administrate matters involving SgtLion. Glad we got that wrapped up, Geodude!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 04:45, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::::::Can't we all just be one big happy family. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::That is why I back down from this; it only stirred the pot. Nothing good comes from this witch hunt. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:40, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::As I have made the point of many times before, there is no witch hunt going on. I ''do'' distrust the conduct of a man who lashes out at even the faintest hint of questioning him, but that is beside the point. D&D Wiki is ''not'' served well by backing down from what's right just because a single user always causes drama over it.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:21, 6 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1181747Discussion:Discord Policy2019-06-06T10:49:09Z<p>GamerAim: Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
<inputbox><br />
type=commenttitle<br />
break=no<br />
align=right<br />
minor=true<br />
nosummary=true<br />
hidden=yes<br />
buttonlabel=Add New Comment<br />
default= ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small><br />
page={{FULLPAGENAME}}<br />
width=45<br />
</inputbox><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING ABOVE IT --><br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>01:21, 8 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
The basis for policies on D&D Wiki's [https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV official discord server] has been layed out with [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Official D&D Wiki Discord Server Policies Referendums|this discussion]]. Consensus may change, so please include any policy referendums for the discord server on this page. Any policy discussions must take place here, since policy discussions on discord do not have any bearing for the server.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small>Official Discord Server link location<small>14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I feel the link to the D&D wiki's discord server is a little hidden away right now. It took me a while to find the community portal on the main page; I don't think I'd ever noticed that link before. Meanwhile, the currently very underused Tavern Chatroom is displayed on the navigation and on the main page. Personally, I think the link to the Tavern Chatroom could be outright replaced with the link to the discord server, though I have no problems with it remaining where it is. It's not unusual for a wiki community to have a discord server that's proudly displayed with a large logo; take for instance the [https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/D%26D_5th_Edition_Wikia D&D 5e wikia].<br />
<br />
I should say why this could be important. When looking at the tavern chatroom logs, some of the most recent messages as of this writing are variants of "is anybody there?" spread out over a week. Most recently, a newcomer asks if the Tavern is always this empty, and then they're given the link to the official discord.<br />
<br />
Since a newcomer's first experience with trying to join the D&D wiki community's chatroom will almost certainly be the tavern chat (as it is more prominently displayed), they may get a false idea of how active the community is, which may discourage them. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
* [https://i.imgur.com/faltlSA.png A screenshot of the tavern chatroom messages I was talking about]<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>14:43, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I too have thought this for other things. I am use to communities prominently displaying a Discord server link as well, along with their other pages though. Maybe a bigger discussion if those get brought up.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) <small><small>05:40, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Something like this? [[File:Discord Logo.png|75px|link=https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV]] We could add this to the [[Main Page]], as well as on the sidebar (if anyone knows if its possible to add an image to [[Mediawiki:Sidebar]], otherwise it can be added below it like the FB was before) if we can agree on doing this.<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>07:49, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
That link is beautifully! Hope others agree with its addition to the sidebar.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>09:21, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
i agree<br />
<br />
== {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} <small><small>10:13, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Looks good to me. Let's add it.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>10:28, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
This looks like consensus to me, so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small><small>12:02, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Awesome! Thanks<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>13:23, 19 February 2019 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Announcing Featured Article Nominees in the #Announcements channel'''</big></big><br><br><br />
As someone continually wanting to drive traffic to these pages, are there objections to sharing a link to the FA page letting Discord users know these discussion are waiting for input. At the very least, posting there once a month-I'd prefer to ping @everyone when that happened. Extra posts would be to put out a new article has been nominated, but @everyone wouldn't be used for that, just the (proposed) monthly one. So yeah...thoughts?<br />
<br />
:That seems like a reasonable use for the #announcements channel as it doesn't get much use. Though I believe it should act as more of a feed when a new article is added and only pinging the relevant system as not all users will find updates for other systems they don't know interesting. Other then that I support the general idea. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:03, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::No objections here. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:38, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Good Idea to use relevant system pings CL. I’ll post in announcements soon and if someone thinks it’s not good I’ll adjust. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
===Political Discussion on the Server===<br />
{{user|RedHawk007}} brought up that political discussion is something that tends to spark arguments and flame wars, and he proposed implementing a "no politics" rule on that basis, and other users have expressed similar sentiments, which I can understand and appreciate after myself having gotten into a heated political debate a couple of days ago. We already have a rule that says "Be respectful of other users and their opinions" and "obey the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]", but this becomes a really easy rule to break with how divisive and black and white politics has become. What are people's thoughts on implementing this "no politics" rule, or if this becomes something that some people really want to discuss, adding a "politics quarantine" channel so that people that don't want to get involved never have to look at it? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm personally ok with political discussion. But I've seen on the discord how people probably have muted the discord or never looked to it because of political discussions that dragged on and on. If it makes people ''that'' uncomfortable, then I'm also ok with "no politics".--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
: A quarantine sounds like a good idea. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are important and i think the arguing won't end just because politics is forbidden to argue about. Everything can be political, after all, so it just becomes a veiled discussion about something else with politics at heart. Like arguing about if certain races are chaotic evil or not and talking about the ingame consequences of issues like this. "If Kobolds are evil by nature, i think genocide against them is justified." Better to have something that can contain the various discussions that can be safely ignored. --[[User:Kara|Kara]] ([[User talk:Kara|talk]]) 13:18, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While I am fine with polite discussions, some users have shown that they simply cannot maintain a civil conversation. Chat Moderators should be within their right and not afraid to hand out warnings or mutes for conversations that threaten to get out of hand. Toxic behaviour has already driven several people out of the discord server and I'd hate to see more go because of a few bad apples. The server should first and foremost be about D&D - all other topics have second place and they shouldn't threaten the integrity of the wiki itself. I'm not a fan of 'quarantine' channels as "#adult topics" (I believe it was called that) simply did not work. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This is going to sound shocking coming from me of all people, but I fully agree with the idea of forbidding any political discussion. Quarantine channels, in my opinion, don't work. As pointed out before, some of us can't discuss things with civility, and I honestly don't think a quarantine channel would really help that much in that regard. It would just keep all the incivility in one area, which would just cause it to inevitably spill out into the rest of the server. The last thing we need is this server suffering the same fate as the previous. To those who want to discuss politics and support the idea of a quarantine channel: That's what DMs are for (direct messages, that is. Not dungeon masters. *winkity wink*) --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm frankly surprised this is even a controversy or a debate. I'm all for a "no politics" rule. If people want to whine and moan about IRL politics, then there are a million more relevant places on the internet to do it than, y'know, an apolitical hobby-related chat for discussing games. Or even better, they can get off the freaking computer for once in their lives and try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber. Just saying. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber." *combination of my laughter from how you wrote that along with some MLG airhorns* --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Okay so I was fine with banning political discussion at first but I've changed my mind. Better to create a quarantine channel for it. Because inevitably, ''something'' is going to come up where a user needs to voice their concerns, but can't because their concerns are "political." For instance, discussing whether or not hate speech should be banned on the discord server? That's a political discussion. So, no. There should be a ban on uncivil / bad faith discussion instead.[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
There's a problem with a ''blanket'' ban on political discourse, that I just realized now. The thing is, it's impossible for anything to be truly apolitical. And frankly, D&D as a hobby hasn't been apolitical for a long time. Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical? And wouldn't banning discussion on that, in turn, be a political statement? Now, I'm all for a ban on, say, whether or not human lives have inherent merit; frankly that shouldn't be a discussion anyways. I'm an ardent supporter of banning hate speech ''in general.'' I also feel that some people [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 make arguments in bad faith] and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense. But, there are going to be times when people will have ''legitimate concerns'' and banning them from raising those concerns on the basis that it's "too political" is, in itself, a political statement. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:No, not everything is political unless you subscribe to some preposterous culturally marxist notion there is no place for a non political private space nor such a thing as a political non-combatant. I find it kind of strange and disturbing that people seem to try to push that mentality these days. <br />
<br />
:"Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical?" - That is a loaded statement with a debatable premise. And no, demanding political change - which is what you are implying you wish to do - is by definition not apolitical.<br />
<br />
:Now you've brought "hate speech" into the conversation. I am ardently opposed to banning hate speech, because the problem with banning so-called "hate speech" is that restricting the voices of a handful of people you disagree with is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to abuse in the name of safety. In my experience, banning and punishing any form of speech is almost always used by dubiously motivated individuals to silence opinions that they subjectively deem "improper" which is not only immoral but a form of intellectual tyranny.<br />
<br />
:"I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense" - Yeah, because those people who take the bait are idiots. No-one is forced at gunpoint to engage into an open, public conversation. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: So... wait, just to be clear... you're saying you want to ban political discourse, but not hate speech?? Also, calling those people who take the bait "idiots" is ignoring how insidious bad faith arguing can actually be. Again: see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 The Card Says Moops]. '''Very''' relevant. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my stance. Hate is an emotion. The "Hate speech" buzzword can be invoked for anything tangientably related to an emotion. What is and is not a political statement, on the other hand, is objective. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Well, if you've got a problem with the hate speech ban, go take it up with rule 1 on the D&D wiki discord server. Start a discussion, try and get it removed, whatever. I ''really'' don't think you'll get much support for that, though. I don't see why we should unban hate speech but not [[Discussion:Updating the Foul Language policy|cussing]]. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I am against a banket ban on political themes, just since that will make a very many users have a directly bad experience with the server when they "accidentally" receive a warning.<br />
:::::I propose that we amend the admin roles on the server, to give the role the power to demand that a topic stops being posted when it's political (per the admin's choice). If the conversation continues, then of course we would use warnings. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::: I don't trust that discord admins would necessarily be able to be "partisan" here, deciding which topics do or do not fall under the blanket ban. Rather, a conversation that has the ''potential'' to be heated can be moved to a quarantine, and then only step in if the conversation ''does'' become heated. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I do trust discord admins to decide when a topic is getting out of hand. They were elected for a reason - to uphold the face of the wiki. Topics inciting hate have no place here and neither do heated discussions in which half of the participants act like children. The DanDwiki is not your personal platform for spreading your political agenda. The only 'Quarantine' that exists here is your DMs. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I think it's pretty easy to tell when a topic is "getting out of hand". It's not rocket science. Heck, and I'm saying that as someone who has probably made some of the most incendiary comments on the discord and caused some discussions to actually go into that "getting out of hand" territory. However, I'll bite - Maybe a "blanket ban" is a bit too much, but if I swear if I see another spat over alignment and racism again... --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Okay so thing is, what you just brought up is EXACTLY the reason WHY a blanket ban won't work. To recap: <code>Off-topic comments removed.</code> So, a blanket ban on political discourse would essentially be saying "Hey, Vark, this concern you're having? That you feel something is (admittedly in this case, mildly) racist? You're not allowed to talk about it," which in turn ''is a political stance.'' It sets a scary precedent. What if something more overt happens in the future? Say someone creates a page that's blatantly racist (like, say, a race that strongly resembles a caricature of a real-world race) to some, but maybe just enough people (which may include the creator) don't immediately realize it's racist and it slips under the radar. Would they not be allowed to raise their concerns over it? Personally, I believe they should, as long as the argument remains civil. Atmittedly, my memories of the argument are Kinda Fuzzy by now, but during that argument I repeatedly tried to find a good compromise. I also tried to understand why my opponents were opposed to my concerns, and was upset because I had multiple concerns and I felt they were being ignored. I was also upset because a lot of people were making fun of me for my concerns, and the whole argument was being treated like a sideshow. In the end, I did appeal to their reasons ("because D&D lore") by using the exact terminology from the D&D race descriptions of alignment, where the strongest wording used is "tends towards X," which means I got exactly what I want, and in a way that I guess was fine with everyone else. A compromise, but ''even better,'' really, since Everyone Wins, No Concessions Needed. That would not have happened if I was not allowed to raise my concerns. The race would still use wording I disliked, and I would be unable to do anything about it. It's impossible to make this space apolitical because right wing and left wing ideology influences A LOT of what we say, do, and believe. If you put right wing and left wing people in a room together, those ideologies are going to clash, even if the topic of politics isn't ''explicitly'' brought up. So, if you want an echo chamber / safe space where you can avoid left wing ideology, you'd have to go to a community completely devoid of left wing folks. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:56, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your entire argument became a moot point as soon as you mentioned 'civil discussion'. You are the first person to come to mind when I think of "People who cannot keep a discussion civil". The fact that you are writing out the entire Marilith discussion again in an attempt to push your original points in said discussion speaks for itself. This is not a platform to push your agenda, this is a discussion about politics and D&D. If people can hold a civil discussion about politics, that would be cool. The sad truth, however, is that some users (including yourself) cannot remain civil in a discussion, turning the whole thing into a 'sideshow' as you call it. That's the last I'm willing to say about it as there is no reasoning with you. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::::: I just went back and reread the whole "hate speech" debate. Which wasn't even a debate I wanted to ''participate'' in. It's true, the part where I dismissed MSO's argument by posting a screenshot of how I had him blocked WAS pretty rude of me. I apologize for that. But, like, that argument WAS getting heated ON both sides, and it SHOULD have stopped a while ago. But in terms of actual ''attacks?'' that was on you guys. I never attacked you, or Redhawk. The worst insult I gave either of you was when I said "yea you're right, debating with someone whose views aren't gonna change is a pretty silly waste of time" which was as much an attack on myself as it was on you. Beyond that, I never called you toxic, or immature, nor accused either of you of being able to converse like a normal human being. The FACT that protecting hate speech apparently even WAS a topic of discussion led to a user feeling uncomfortable and leaving the discord, because as it turns out, extreme right wing ideology tends to make people feel unsafe. As such, I do feel there should be a quarantine so people who don't want to participate can mute the channel, and moderators should step in when discussion gets heated. Maybe we can figure out what specific topics are so incendiary that they shouldn't even begin? As a potential starting point for any such list I'd agree to not to bring up punching nazis, egging islamaphobes, or eating the rich if we as a community can also agree to not to defend viewpoints that fall under the "content of a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nature" part of rule #1 of the discord, which would include "protecting hate speech." Anyways, since that's the last you're willing to say on the topic, I'm fine with accepting my culpability in the heatedness of that particular discussion. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:39, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I really have no idea what type of consensus is being discussed. It seems like some users have an agenda which we are not discussing. This discussion is about how we want to, if and when, offer a policy to censor posts on discord. The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::"The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat." This is the proposal I wholly stand behind. Maybe we can start a fresh discussion by putting the indentation back to one with that proposal? -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 13:23, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
: "...women being discriminated against in D&D meetups..." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFGVbJQIy0 As the ancient Hawaiians used to say...] --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 23:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: Just because you've never seen it (or chosen to ignore it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. all. the. time. [https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+experiences+with+D%26D+site:www.reddit.com&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbrZ2d0JzhAhVCpIMKHUaiDo0QrQIoBDAAegQIBxAL&biw=1760&bih=886 A quick google search turns up thread after thread of women talking about their experiences with sexism over the past decade]. So there's your citation. Sure, it's not a universal experience, but it's an all-too common one. That's not the topic of discussion right now, though. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"That's not the topic of discussion right now, though" Then why respond in the first place? --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Please, neither of you continue this conversation thread. This is a discussion about whether users should be trusted to remain civil with one another when discussing political topics, not about discrimination of any sort in the TTRPG community. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Please, stay on topic and help the community reach a consensus. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 01:02, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I understand. My apologizes. --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with {{user|Green Dragon}}'s words on this. My thoughts and feelings but in much less words. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> <small><small>13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Discord Moderators'''</big></big><br><br />
Sort of in line with {{user|Geodude671}} post above, moderators. Admins are automatically bestowed with moderator rights. Mods would help make sure respect is given to users. Geodude is the most available admin/mod on the Discord, followed by CL then myself. Even with some of our availability we really only answer SRD/balance questions. I think using the Wiki to have a Request for Moderator (or whatever is deemed) would be helpful. Users like {{user|ConcealedWife}} are already trying to do these things on Discord, and perhaps being a mod would bestow help to those trying to keep the peace.<br />
<br />
:I've actually been toying with this idea for some time now. While I'm in no way experienced enough (nor do I currently aspire) to be an admin, I would be interested in becoming a discord chat moderator. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I think this would be very beneficial, though we'd need to work out specifics. I personally think {{user|ConcealedWife}} and {{user|Yanied}} would be good candidates for the first non-admin moderators. <br />
:Should Discord moderators also get mod privileges in the tavern chat? It's probably not necessary with how low activity in the tavern is, but it could be nice to have. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I don't see why not. I can see how that would be helpful. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that this makes sense. To grant users these rights we will need a similar process to an [[RfA]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Chanting: "rFm! rFm!". All jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind being the first to go through this process once we reach consensus. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 07:21, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I can get behind this protocol. But the specifics will need to be fleshed out before anyone gets too excited. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::went bold and created [[D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation]]. Hopefully the discussion page can be a good place to discuss criteria and considerations for this process. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 09:00, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Just to sorta start the ball, I would suggest that a mod be able to mute users and change roles. Kicking and warning users, and creating/deleting channels might be better reserved for admins. When I picture a mod, I imagine someone to quell disagreements and intermediate. And I don't mean to imply that admins are better people or have better judgement than what a mod would. Just the idea of mod from my experience has monitored chat. I am sure other servers mods can do more, which feel free to discuss. I am just pushing the ball. wooooooooooooo! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:18, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Further pushing that ball after it's been still for a bit, I feel a chat mod should do just what is relevant to chat. So I don't find the monitoring of roles a necessary role for them, just the ability to mute users or maybe issue limited warnings (though it is understandable if that is not possible).--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I am against this on a number of grounds:<br><br />
1) Especially with me now in the Discord (P.S. GD I need admin role there whenever it's convenient for you), there are plenty of admins in the server. Me, CL, Geodude and BSFM are all active daily.<br><br />
2) Giving special roles to users was one of the things that cause strife in the other server. Giving special privileges? I think that sends the wrong message.<br><br />
3) Just to compound the two above, there is no ''need'' to give special moderator privileges to users just for the sake of it.<br><br />
4) Frankly, CW's involvement in this sends the wrong message IMO. I quite honestly worry about the implications of her and CL both having moderation privileges, given their past history. But I will concede part of this might be latent distrust over my history with CW. If anyone believes that is the case, ignore this point.<br><br />
5) I also worry about the precedent this sets, considering that the Discord server's "constitution" limits the servers' autonomy and ability to set its own policies. In my opinion, this would be a gross overstep of the server's bounds. Though the ramifications would theoretically be contained to Discord, history has shown that too much power in Discord has the side-effect of harming D&D Wiki. We've all witnessed this, unfortunately :( --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that there are indeed plenty of admins in the server already.<br />
:I'll take this opportunity to say that, based on continued patterns of "lashing out" over Discord (both the current server and its precedent), I believe GamerAim should not be made an admin on the D&D Wiki discord server even if he retains admin status and good graces on the wiki proper. To be entirely candid, there is no one I would trust less with the privilege. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 18:06, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Guy is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but there has been no "lashing out," unless Guy means a single heated discussion we had over a miscommunication. There has otherwise been no real incidents of note before or since. In fact, I was quite open with the server in confronting the elephant in the room and we all agreed to move forward in pursuit of a trusting relationship. I understand that Guy and I have a history of distrust, but as I said on Discord, I look forward to rebuilding our trust in each other. Naturally, I will otherwise avoid debating this particular topic (my adminship) unless requested, so as to avoid a conflict of interest. I know that we all have baggage, and I hope that this move will show that I am willing to turn over a new leaf and engage with my honored privileges as a trusted instrument of the community I love.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I cannot help but say Guy's concern is valid but this is a conversation about moderation so please keep on topic. GA please make your request for administrative privileges through another topic or more preferably directly to GD. In the interest of continuing the conversation on moderation, you do not have to respond to this message. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While there are normally several admins active at once and can deal with issues that arise, I will highlight the difference in timezones that I experience being in Europe as oppose to the United States. I often find that I'm on the only admin available until the day rolls on quite a bit and then administrators in the US of which the majority are, come online. Thus, in the event I am not available I believe it is reasonable to take on a chat moderator in order to increase the coverage and availability of the team. At the same time, I don't feel it would be fair to take on just one person in a test capacity and so I'll recommend that we take on two chat moderators, ideally one of them being in the European/Asian time zone range. This can be done initially in a test capacity and we can review their performance/ effectiveness after a month or two. In terms of what privileges they should have, I believe role management in order to verify users but also apply the Muted role to prevent spamming as well as naming management in order to enforce the wiki name usage. While I can see a case being made for kick/ban privileges the Muted role (which prevents users from interacting with the server and its channels) serves to put a bandaid on any issue for administrative review later and prevents a rogue moderator from doing something malicious like kicking/banning all other users. How does this sound? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::There is still the matter of our user base being majority American and also well-behaved. I've not been active until recently, so I will refer to an admin I can trust there - like BSFM or Geodude - as to whether there have been many incidents while they were away. I think it's important to hear about the actual need for chat mods, first and foremost.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 04:49, 6 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181746User talk:Admin2019-06-06T10:45:39Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::because it’s a highly subjective topic and futile effort to prove. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:48, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's not subjective or hard to prove if we have proof of users declaring some form of relationship. In the instance of CL and CW, this has been affirmed by them both on multiple occasions. In this case, the relationship has been proved. I see no harm in making this policy, so long as it's clear that only confirmed relationships apply. Heck, I'll even concede that I shouldn't be allowed to administrate SgtLion.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Edit: I'd like to note that this isn't about CL and CW. I only just returned and don't know anything about CL and CW and Vark, so this isn't in response to anything anyone did recently. I'm just supporting a user/admin who brought up the same concerns that I did by providing a simple, no-harm policy to allay any concerns users may have.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: As I requested on my talk page please avoid discrediting my judgements due to perceived information about my personal life as I endevor to keep it separate from my administrative duties and remain lawful neutral in my application. I should not have to share such information about myself in order to ease your own concerns about my judgement. This is the last I will say on the matter unless a futile policy like this see's concensus. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 15:37, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Please do not refer to the honest concerns of other users and admins as "futile policy." If you'd like, I can make a serious inquiry into your conduct, which present policy would prevent you from being involved in.<br />
:::::::::With that formality out of the way, this is not about you, personally, CL, despite whatever importance you may or may not blatantly express about yourself. I am more than happy to post the public record of this "perceived information.". Nobody is forcing you to share anything - you have already shared this information and it can be corroborated if you insist that it isn't true. To be frank, the more defensive you appear to be, the more I'm inclined to believe that you've done something wrong.<br />
:::::::::And so, to be clear: you have been accused of nothing except disrespectfulness towards other users. The policy would apply to all admins where information regarding their relationship to another user is already a matter of public record. No one would be forced to share anything. That your relationship is already a matter of public record is beside the point. Now, I do apologize if you feel as if your privacy is being invaded, but you shared this knowledge freely, and your presumably unwarranted defensive gestures only serve to point blame at you where otherwise none would be.<br />
:::::::::So, again, I see no reason why any innocent, humble administrator would oppose stepping back in a rare case of administrating someone that public record shows he has a relationship with. But then, I would not ''dare'' make assumptions about the character of my fellow administrators :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:58, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I agree with {{user|ConcealedLight}} that a neutral point of view is necessary for an admin, and there are no restrictions about who they should interact with. This is a core policy already, [[w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::NPOV is about maintaining a neutral point of view in articles themselves. Since D&D Wiki is not a factual wiki, that policy is not relevant. The policy you are thinking of is {{w|WP:INVOLVED}}. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:46, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Okay then, as per NPOV, it seems that BSFM and I both agree that CL is unable to administrate matters involving CW, and I am unable to administrate matters involving SgtLion. Glad we got that wrapped up, Geodude!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 04:45, 6 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1181663Discussion:Discord Policy2019-06-06T00:50:59Z<p>GamerAim: Fixed.</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
<inputbox><br />
type=commenttitle<br />
break=no<br />
align=right<br />
minor=true<br />
nosummary=true<br />
hidden=yes<br />
buttonlabel=Add New Comment<br />
default= ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small><br />
page={{FULLPAGENAME}}<br />
width=45<br />
</inputbox><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING ABOVE IT --><br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>01:21, 8 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
The basis for policies on D&D Wiki's [https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV official discord server] has been layed out with [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Official D&D Wiki Discord Server Policies Referendums|this discussion]]. Consensus may change, so please include any policy referendums for the discord server on this page. Any policy discussions must take place here, since policy discussions on discord do not have any bearing for the server.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small>Official Discord Server link location<small>14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I feel the link to the D&D wiki's discord server is a little hidden away right now. It took me a while to find the community portal on the main page; I don't think I'd ever noticed that link before. Meanwhile, the currently very underused Tavern Chatroom is displayed on the navigation and on the main page. Personally, I think the link to the Tavern Chatroom could be outright replaced with the link to the discord server, though I have no problems with it remaining where it is. It's not unusual for a wiki community to have a discord server that's proudly displayed with a large logo; take for instance the [https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/D%26D_5th_Edition_Wikia D&D 5e wikia].<br />
<br />
I should say why this could be important. When looking at the tavern chatroom logs, some of the most recent messages as of this writing are variants of "is anybody there?" spread out over a week. Most recently, a newcomer asks if the Tavern is always this empty, and then they're given the link to the official discord.<br />
<br />
Since a newcomer's first experience with trying to join the D&D wiki community's chatroom will almost certainly be the tavern chat (as it is more prominently displayed), they may get a false idea of how active the community is, which may discourage them. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
* [https://i.imgur.com/faltlSA.png A screenshot of the tavern chatroom messages I was talking about]<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>14:43, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I too have thought this for other things. I am use to communities prominently displaying a Discord server link as well, along with their other pages though. Maybe a bigger discussion if those get brought up.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) <small><small>05:40, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Something like this? [[File:Discord Logo.png|75px|link=https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV]] We could add this to the [[Main Page]], as well as on the sidebar (if anyone knows if its possible to add an image to [[Mediawiki:Sidebar]], otherwise it can be added below it like the FB was before) if we can agree on doing this.<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>07:49, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
That link is beautifully! Hope others agree with its addition to the sidebar.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>09:21, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
i agree<br />
<br />
== {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} <small><small>10:13, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Looks good to me. Let's add it.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>10:28, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
This looks like consensus to me, so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small><small>12:02, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Awesome! Thanks<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>13:23, 19 February 2019 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Announcing Featured Article Nominees in the #Announcements channel'''</big></big><br><br><br />
As someone continually wanting to drive traffic to these pages, are there objections to sharing a link to the FA page letting Discord users know these discussion are waiting for input. At the very least, posting there once a month-I'd prefer to ping @everyone when that happened. Extra posts would be to put out a new article has been nominated, but @everyone wouldn't be used for that, just the (proposed) monthly one. So yeah...thoughts?<br />
<br />
:That seems like a reasonable use for the #announcements channel as it doesn't get much use. Though I believe it should act as more of a feed when a new article is added and only pinging the relevant system as not all users will find updates for other systems they don't know interesting. Other then that I support the general idea. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:03, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::No objections here. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:38, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Good Idea to use relevant system pings CL. I’ll post in announcements soon and if someone thinks it’s not good I’ll adjust. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
===Political Discussion on the Server===<br />
{{user|RedHawk007}} brought up that political discussion is something that tends to spark arguments and flame wars, and he proposed implementing a "no politics" rule on that basis, and other users have expressed similar sentiments, which I can understand and appreciate after myself having gotten into a heated political debate a couple of days ago. We already have a rule that says "Be respectful of other users and their opinions" and "obey the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]", but this becomes a really easy rule to break with how divisive and black and white politics has become. What are people's thoughts on implementing this "no politics" rule, or if this becomes something that some people really want to discuss, adding a "politics quarantine" channel so that people that don't want to get involved never have to look at it? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm personally ok with political discussion. But I've seen on the discord how people probably have muted the discord or never looked to it because of political discussions that dragged on and on. If it makes people ''that'' uncomfortable, then I'm also ok with "no politics".--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
: A quarantine sounds like a good idea. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are important and i think the arguing won't end just because politics is forbidden to argue about. Everything can be political, after all, so it just becomes a veiled discussion about something else with politics at heart. Like arguing about if certain races are chaotic evil or not and talking about the ingame consequences of issues like this. "If Kobolds are evil by nature, i think genocide against them is justified." Better to have something that can contain the various discussions that can be safely ignored. --[[User:Kara|Kara]] ([[User talk:Kara|talk]]) 13:18, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While I am fine with polite discussions, some users have shown that they simply cannot maintain a civil conversation. Chat Moderators should be within their right and not afraid to hand out warnings or mutes for conversations that threaten to get out of hand. Toxic behaviour has already driven several people out of the discord server and I'd hate to see more go because of a few bad apples. The server should first and foremost be about D&D - all other topics have second place and they shouldn't threaten the integrity of the wiki itself. I'm not a fan of 'quarantine' channels as "#adult topics" (I believe it was called that) simply did not work. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This is going to sound shocking coming from me of all people, but I fully agree with the idea of forbidding any political discussion. Quarantine channels, in my opinion, don't work. As pointed out before, some of us can't discuss things with civility, and I honestly don't think a quarantine channel would really help that much in that regard. It would just keep all the incivility in one area, which would just cause it to inevitably spill out into the rest of the server. The last thing we need is this server suffering the same fate as the previous. To those who want to discuss politics and support the idea of a quarantine channel: That's what DMs are for (direct messages, that is. Not dungeon masters. *winkity wink*) --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm frankly surprised this is even a controversy or a debate. I'm all for a "no politics" rule. If people want to whine and moan about IRL politics, then there are a million more relevant places on the internet to do it than, y'know, an apolitical hobby-related chat for discussing games. Or even better, they can get off the freaking computer for once in their lives and try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber. Just saying. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber." *combination of my laughter from how you wrote that along with some MLG airhorns* --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Okay so I was fine with banning political discussion at first but I've changed my mind. Better to create a quarantine channel for it. Because inevitably, ''something'' is going to come up where a user needs to voice their concerns, but can't because their concerns are "political." For instance, discussing whether or not hate speech should be banned on the discord server? That's a political discussion. So, no. There should be a ban on uncivil / bad faith discussion instead.[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
There's a problem with a ''blanket'' ban on political discourse, that I just realized now. The thing is, it's impossible for anything to be truly apolitical. And frankly, D&D as a hobby hasn't been apolitical for a long time. Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical? And wouldn't banning discussion on that, in turn, be a political statement? Now, I'm all for a ban on, say, whether or not human lives have inherent merit; frankly that shouldn't be a discussion anyways. I'm an ardent supporter of banning hate speech ''in general.'' I also feel that some people [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 make arguments in bad faith] and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense. But, there are going to be times when people will have ''legitimate concerns'' and banning them from raising those concerns on the basis that it's "too political" is, in itself, a political statement. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:No, not everything is political unless you subscribe to some preposterous culturally marxist notion there is no place for a non political private space nor such a thing as a political non-combatant. I find it kind of strange and disturbing that people seem to try to push that mentality these days. <br />
<br />
:"Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical?" - That is a loaded statement with a debatable premise. And no, demanding political change - which is what you are implying you wish to do - is by definition not apolitical.<br />
<br />
:Now you've brought "hate speech" into the conversation. I am ardently opposed to banning hate speech, because the problem with banning so-called "hate speech" is that restricting the voices of a handful of people you disagree with is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to abuse in the name of safety. In my experience, banning and punishing any form of speech is almost always used by dubiously motivated individuals to silence opinions that they subjectively deem "improper" which is not only immoral but a form of intellectual tyranny.<br />
<br />
:"I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense" - Yeah, because those people who take the bait are idiots. No-one is forced at gunpoint to engage into an open, public conversation. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: So... wait, just to be clear... you're saying you want to ban political discourse, but not hate speech?? Also, calling those people who take the bait "idiots" is ignoring how insidious bad faith arguing can actually be. Again: see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 The Card Says Moops]. '''Very''' relevant. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my stance. Hate is an emotion. The "Hate speech" buzzword can be invoked for anything tangientably related to an emotion. What is and is not a political statement, on the other hand, is objective. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Well, if you've got a problem with the hate speech ban, go take it up with rule 1 on the D&D wiki discord server. Start a discussion, try and get it removed, whatever. I ''really'' don't think you'll get much support for that, though. I don't see why we should unban hate speech but not [[Discussion:Updating the Foul Language policy|cussing]]. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I am against a banket ban on political themes, just since that will make a very many users have a directly bad experience with the server when they "accidentally" receive a warning.<br />
:::::I propose that we amend the admin roles on the server, to give the role the power to demand that a topic stops being posted when it's political (per the admin's choice). If the conversation continues, then of course we would use warnings. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::: I don't trust that discord admins would necessarily be able to be "partisan" here, deciding which topics do or do not fall under the blanket ban. Rather, a conversation that has the ''potential'' to be heated can be moved to a quarantine, and then only step in if the conversation ''does'' become heated. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I do trust discord admins to decide when a topic is getting out of hand. They were elected for a reason - to uphold the face of the wiki. Topics inciting hate have no place here and neither do heated discussions in which half of the participants act like children. The DanDwiki is not your personal platform for spreading your political agenda. The only 'Quarantine' that exists here is your DMs. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I think it's pretty easy to tell when a topic is "getting out of hand". It's not rocket science. Heck, and I'm saying that as someone who has probably made some of the most incendiary comments on the discord and caused some discussions to actually go into that "getting out of hand" territory. However, I'll bite - Maybe a "blanket ban" is a bit too much, but if I swear if I see another spat over alignment and racism again... --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Okay so thing is, what you just brought up is EXACTLY the reason WHY a blanket ban won't work. To recap: <code>Off-topic comments removed.</code> So, a blanket ban on political discourse would essentially be saying "Hey, Vark, this concern you're having? That you feel something is (admittedly in this case, mildly) racist? You're not allowed to talk about it," which in turn ''is a political stance.'' It sets a scary precedent. What if something more overt happens in the future? Say someone creates a page that's blatantly racist (like, say, a race that strongly resembles a caricature of a real-world race) to some, but maybe just enough people (which may include the creator) don't immediately realize it's racist and it slips under the radar. Would they not be allowed to raise their concerns over it? Personally, I believe they should, as long as the argument remains civil. Atmittedly, my memories of the argument are Kinda Fuzzy by now, but during that argument I repeatedly tried to find a good compromise. I also tried to understand why my opponents were opposed to my concerns, and was upset because I had multiple concerns and I felt they were being ignored. I was also upset because a lot of people were making fun of me for my concerns, and the whole argument was being treated like a sideshow. In the end, I did appeal to their reasons ("because D&D lore") by using the exact terminology from the D&D race descriptions of alignment, where the strongest wording used is "tends towards X," which means I got exactly what I want, and in a way that I guess was fine with everyone else. A compromise, but ''even better,'' really, since Everyone Wins, No Concessions Needed. That would not have happened if I was not allowed to raise my concerns. The race would still use wording I disliked, and I would be unable to do anything about it. It's impossible to make this space apolitical because right wing and left wing ideology influences A LOT of what we say, do, and believe. If you put right wing and left wing people in a room together, those ideologies are going to clash, even if the topic of politics isn't ''explicitly'' brought up. So, if you want an echo chamber / safe space where you can avoid left wing ideology, you'd have to go to a community completely devoid of left wing folks. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:56, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your entire argument became a moot point as soon as you mentioned 'civil discussion'. You are the first person to come to mind when I think of "People who cannot keep a discussion civil". The fact that you are writing out the entire Marilith discussion again in an attempt to push your original points in said discussion speaks for itself. This is not a platform to push your agenda, this is a discussion about politics and D&D. If people can hold a civil discussion about politics, that would be cool. The sad truth, however, is that some users (including yourself) cannot remain civil in a discussion, turning the whole thing into a 'sideshow' as you call it. That's the last I'm willing to say about it as there is no reasoning with you. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::::: I just went back and reread the whole "hate speech" debate. Which wasn't even a debate I wanted to ''participate'' in. It's true, the part where I dismissed MSO's argument by posting a screenshot of how I had him blocked WAS pretty rude of me. I apologize for that. But, like, that argument WAS getting heated ON both sides, and it SHOULD have stopped a while ago. But in terms of actual ''attacks?'' that was on you guys. I never attacked you, or Redhawk. The worst insult I gave either of you was when I said "yea you're right, debating with someone whose views aren't gonna change is a pretty silly waste of time" which was as much an attack on myself as it was on you. Beyond that, I never called you toxic, or immature, nor accused either of you of being able to converse like a normal human being. The FACT that protecting hate speech apparently even WAS a topic of discussion led to a user feeling uncomfortable and leaving the discord, because as it turns out, extreme right wing ideology tends to make people feel unsafe. As such, I do feel there should be a quarantine so people who don't want to participate can mute the channel, and moderators should step in when discussion gets heated. Maybe we can figure out what specific topics are so incendiary that they shouldn't even begin? As a potential starting point for any such list I'd agree to not to bring up punching nazis, egging islamaphobes, or eating the rich if we as a community can also agree to not to defend viewpoints that fall under the "content of a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nature" part of rule #1 of the discord, which would include "protecting hate speech." Anyways, since that's the last you're willing to say on the topic, I'm fine with accepting my culpability in the heatedness of that particular discussion. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:39, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I really have no idea what type of consensus is being discussed. It seems like some users have an agenda which we are not discussing. This discussion is about how we want to, if and when, offer a policy to censor posts on discord. The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::"The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat." This is the proposal I wholly stand behind. Maybe we can start a fresh discussion by putting the indentation back to one with that proposal? -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 13:23, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
: "...women being discriminated against in D&D meetups..." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFGVbJQIy0 As the ancient Hawaiians used to say...] --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 23:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: Just because you've never seen it (or chosen to ignore it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. all. the. time. [https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+experiences+with+D%26D+site:www.reddit.com&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbrZ2d0JzhAhVCpIMKHUaiDo0QrQIoBDAAegQIBxAL&biw=1760&bih=886 A quick google search turns up thread after thread of women talking about their experiences with sexism over the past decade]. So there's your citation. Sure, it's not a universal experience, but it's an all-too common one. That's not the topic of discussion right now, though. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"That's not the topic of discussion right now, though" Then why respond in the first place? --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Please, neither of you continue this conversation thread. This is a discussion about whether users should be trusted to remain civil with one another when discussing political topics, not about discrimination of any sort in the TTRPG community. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Please, stay on topic and help the community reach a consensus. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 01:02, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I understand. My apologizes. --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with {{user|Green Dragon}}'s words on this. My thoughts and feelings but in much less words. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> <small><small>13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Discord Moderators'''</big></big><br><br />
Sort of in line with {{user|Geodude671}} post above, moderators. Admins are automatically bestowed with moderator rights. Mods would help make sure respect is given to users. Geodude is the most available admin/mod on the Discord, followed by CL then myself. Even with some of our availability we really only answer SRD/balance questions. I think using the Wiki to have a Request for Moderator (or whatever is deemed) would be helpful. Users like {{user|ConcealedWife}} are already trying to do these things on Discord, and perhaps being a mod would bestow help to those trying to keep the peace.<br />
<br />
:I've actually been toying with this idea for some time now. While I'm in no way experienced enough (nor do I currently aspire) to be an admin, I would be interested in becoming a discord chat moderator. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I think this would be very beneficial, though we'd need to work out specifics. I personally think {{user|ConcealedWife}} and {{user|Yanied}} would be good candidates for the first non-admin moderators. <br />
:Should Discord moderators also get mod privileges in the tavern chat? It's probably not necessary with how low activity in the tavern is, but it could be nice to have. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I don't see why not. I can see how that would be helpful. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that this makes sense. To grant users these rights we will need a similar process to an [[RfA]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Chanting: "rFm! rFm!". All jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind being the first to go through this process once we reach consensus. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 07:21, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I can get behind this protocol. But the specifics will need to be fleshed out before anyone gets too excited. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::went bold and created [[D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation]]. Hopefully the discussion page can be a good place to discuss criteria and considerations for this process. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 09:00, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Just to sorta start the ball, I would suggest that a mod be able to mute users and change roles. Kicking and warning users, and creating/deleting channels might be better reserved for admins. When I picture a mod, I imagine someone to quell disagreements and intermediate. And I don't mean to imply that admins are better people or have better judgement than what a mod would. Just the idea of mod from my experience has monitored chat. I am sure other servers mods can do more, which feel free to discuss. I am just pushing the ball. wooooooooooooo! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:18, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Further pushing that ball after it's been still for a bit, I feel a chat mod should do just what is relevant to chat. So I don't find the monitoring of roles a necessary role for them, just the ability to mute users or maybe issue limited warnings (though it is understandable if that is not possible).--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I am against this on a number of grounds:<br><br />
1) Especially with me now in the Discord (P.S. GD I need admin role there whenever it's convenient for you), there are plenty of admins in the server. Me, CL, Geodude and BSFM are all active daily.<br><br />
2) Giving special roles to users was one of the things that cause strife in the other server. Giving special privileges? I think that sends the wrong message.<br><br />
3) Just to compound the two above, there is no ''need'' to give special moderator privileges to users just for the sake of it.<br><br />
4) Frankly, CW's involvement in this sends the wrong message IMO. I quite honestly worry about the implications of her and CL both having moderation privileges, given their past history. But I will concede part of this might be latent distrust over my history with CW. If anyone believes that is the case, ignore this point.<br><br />
5) I also worry about the precedent this sets, considering that the Discord server's "constitution" limits the servers' autonomy and ability to set its own policies. In my opinion, this would be a gross overstep of the server's bounds. Though the ramifications would theoretically be contained to Discord, history has shown that too much power in Discord has the side-effect of harming D&D Wiki. We've all witnessed this, unfortunately :( --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that there are indeed plenty of admins in the server already.<br />
:I'll take this opportunity to say that, based on continued patterns of "lashing out" over Discord (both the current server and its precedent), I believe GamerAim should not be made an admin on the D&D Wiki discord server even if he retains admin status and good graces on the wiki proper. To be entirely candid, there is no one I would trust less with the privilege. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 18:06, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Guy is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but there has been no "lashing out," unless Guy means a single heated discussion we had over a miscommunication. There has otherwise been no real incidents of note before or since. In fact, I was quite open with the server in confronting the elephant in the room and we all agreed to move forward in pursuit of a trusting relationship. I understand that Guy and I have a history of distrust, but as I said on Discord, I look forward to rebuilding our trust in each other. Naturally, I will otherwise avoid debating this particular topic (my adminship) unless requested, so as to avoid a conflict of interest. I know that we all have baggage, and I hope that this move will show that I am willing to turn over a new leaf and engage with my honored privileges as a trusted instrument of the community I love.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1181654Talk:Main Page2019-06-06T00:02:37Z<p>GamerAim: /* Page Appreciation */ Added a simile.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails...<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181652User talk:Admin2019-06-05T23:59:10Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Removed weird errant unfinished sentence.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::because it’s a highly subjective topic and futile effort to prove. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:48, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's not subjective or hard to prove if we have proof of users declaring some form of relationship. In the instance of CL and CW, this has been affirmed by them both on multiple occasions. In this case, the relationship has been proved. I see no harm in making this policy, so long as it's clear that only confirmed relationships apply. Heck, I'll even concede that I shouldn't be allowed to administrate SgtLion.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Edit: I'd like to note that this isn't about CL and CW. I only just returned and don't know anything about CL and CW and Vark, so this isn't in response to anything anyone did recently. I'm just supporting a user/admin who brought up the same concerns that I did by providing a simple, no-harm policy to allay any concerns users may have.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: As I requested on my talk page please avoid discrediting my judgements due to perceived information about my personal life as I endevor to keep it separate from my administrative duties and remain lawful neutral in my application. I should not have to share such information about myself in order to ease your own concerns about my judgement. This is the last I will say on the matter unless a futile policy like this see's concensus. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 15:37, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Please do not refer to the honest concerns of other users and admins as "futile policy." If you'd like, I can make a serious inquiry into your conduct, which present policy would prevent you from being involved in.<br />
:::::::::With that formality out of the way, this is not about you, personally, CL, despite whatever importance you may or may not blatantly express about yourself. I am more than happy to post the public record of this "perceived information.". Nobody is forcing you to share anything - you have already shared this information and it can be corroborated if you insist that it isn't true. To be frank, the more defensive you appear to be, the more I'm inclined to believe that you've done something wrong.<br />
:::::::::And so, to be clear: you have been accused of nothing except disrespectfulness towards other users. The policy would apply to all admins where information regarding their relationship to another user is already a matter of public record. No one would be forced to share anything. That your relationship is already a matter of public record is beside the point. Now, I do apologize if you feel as if your privacy is being invaded, but you shared this knowledge freely, and your presumably unwarranted defensive gestures only serve to point blame at you where otherwise none would be.<br />
:::::::::So, again, I see no reason why any innocent, humble administrator would oppose stepping back in a rare case of administrating someone that public record shows he has a relationship with. But then, I would not ''dare'' make assumptions about the character of my fellow administrators :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:58, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181650User talk:Admin2019-06-05T23:58:32Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a fair and balanced reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::because it’s a highly subjective topic and futile effort to prove. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:48, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's not subjective or hard to prove if we have proof of users declaring some form of relationship. In the instance of CL and CW, this has been affirmed by them both on multiple occasions. In this case, the relationship has been proved. I see no harm in making this policy, so long as it's clear that only confirmed relationships apply. Heck, I'll even concede that I shouldn't be allowed to administrate SgtLion.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Edit: I'd like to note that this isn't about CL and CW. I only just returned and don't know anything about CL and CW and Vark, so this isn't in response to anything anyone did recently. I'm just supporting a user/admin who brought up the same concerns that I did by providing a simple, no-harm policy to allay any concerns users may have.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: As I requested on my talk page please avoid discrediting my judgements due to perceived information about my personal life as I endevor to keep it separate from my administrative duties and remain lawful neutral in my application. I should not have to share such information about myself in order to ease your own concerns about my judgement. This is the last I will say on the matter unless a futile policy like this see's concensus. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 15:37, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Please do not refer to the honest concerns of other users and admins as "futile policy." Your aggression in this matter is. If you'd like, I can make a serious inquiry into your conduct, which present policy would prevent you from being involved in.<br />
:::::::::With that formality out of the way, this is not about you, personally, CL, despite whatever importance you may or may not blatantly express about yourself. I am more than happy to post the public record of this "perceived information.". Nobody is forcing you to share anything - you have already shared this information and it can be corroborated if you insist that it isn't true. To be frank, the more defensive you appear to be, the more I'm inclined to believe that you've done something wrong.<br />
:::::::::And so, to be clear: you have been accused of nothing except disrespectfulness towards other users. The policy would apply to all admins where information regarding their relationship to another user is already a matter of public record. No one would be forced to share anything. That your relationship is already a matter of public record is beside the point. Now, I do apologize if you feel as if your privacy is being invaded, but you shared this knowledge freely, and your presumably unwarranted defensive gestures only serve to point blame at you where otherwise none would be.<br />
:::::::::So, again, I see no reason why any innocent, humble administrator would oppose stepping back in a rare case of administrating someone that public record shows he has a relationship with. But then, I would not ''dare'' make assumptions about the character of my fellow administrators :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:58, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1181647Discussion:Discord Policy2019-06-05T23:47:06Z<p>GamerAim: /* ~ BigShotFancyMan talk contributions 13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT) */ Added line breaks.</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
<inputbox><br />
type=commenttitle<br />
break=no<br />
align=right<br />
minor=true<br />
nosummary=true<br />
hidden=yes<br />
buttonlabel=Add New Comment<br />
default= ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small><br />
page={{FULLPAGENAME}}<br />
width=45<br />
</inputbox><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING ABOVE IT --><br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>01:21, 8 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
The basis for policies on D&D Wiki's [https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV official discord server] has been layed out with [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Official D&D Wiki Discord Server Policies Referendums|this discussion]]. Consensus may change, so please include any policy referendums for the discord server on this page. Any policy discussions must take place here, since policy discussions on discord do not have any bearing for the server.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small>Official Discord Server link location<small>14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I feel the link to the D&D wiki's discord server is a little hidden away right now. It took me a while to find the community portal on the main page; I don't think I'd ever noticed that link before. Meanwhile, the currently very underused Tavern Chatroom is displayed on the navigation and on the main page. Personally, I think the link to the Tavern Chatroom could be outright replaced with the link to the discord server, though I have no problems with it remaining where it is. It's not unusual for a wiki community to have a discord server that's proudly displayed with a large logo; take for instance the [https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/D%26D_5th_Edition_Wikia D&D 5e wikia].<br />
<br />
I should say why this could be important. When looking at the tavern chatroom logs, some of the most recent messages as of this writing are variants of "is anybody there?" spread out over a week. Most recently, a newcomer asks if the Tavern is always this empty, and then they're given the link to the official discord.<br />
<br />
Since a newcomer's first experience with trying to join the D&D wiki community's chatroom will almost certainly be the tavern chat (as it is more prominently displayed), they may get a false idea of how active the community is, which may discourage them. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
* [https://i.imgur.com/faltlSA.png A screenshot of the tavern chatroom messages I was talking about]<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>14:43, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I too have thought this for other things. I am use to communities prominently displaying a Discord server link as well, along with their other pages though. Maybe a bigger discussion if those get brought up.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) <small><small>05:40, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Something like this? [[File:Discord Logo.png|75px|link=https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV]] We could add this to the [[Main Page]], as well as on the sidebar (if anyone knows if its possible to add an image to [[Mediawiki:Sidebar]], otherwise it can be added below it like the FB was before) if we can agree on doing this.<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>07:49, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
That link is beautifully! Hope others agree with its addition to the sidebar.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>09:21, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
i agree<br />
<br />
== {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} <small><small>10:13, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Looks good to me. Let's add it.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>10:28, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
This looks like consensus to me, so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small><small>12:02, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Awesome! Thanks<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>13:23, 19 February 2019 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Announcing Featured Article Nominees in the #Announcements channel'''</big></big><br><br><br />
As someone continually wanting to drive traffic to these pages, are there objections to sharing a link to the FA page letting Discord users know these discussion are waiting for input. At the very least, posting there once a month-I'd prefer to ping @everyone when that happened. Extra posts would be to put out a new article has been nominated, but @everyone wouldn't be used for that, just the (proposed) monthly one. So yeah...thoughts?<br />
<br />
:That seems like a reasonable use for the #announcements channel as it doesn't get much use. Though I believe it should act as more of a feed when a new article is added and only pinging the relevant system as not all users will find updates for other systems they don't know interesting. Other then that I support the general idea. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:03, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::No objections here. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:38, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Good Idea to use relevant system pings CL. I’ll post in announcements soon and if someone thinks it’s not good I’ll adjust. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
===Political Discussion on the Server===<br />
{{user|RedHawk007}} brought up that political discussion is something that tends to spark arguments and flame wars, and he proposed implementing a "no politics" rule on that basis, and other users have expressed similar sentiments, which I can understand and appreciate after myself having gotten into a heated political debate a couple of days ago. We already have a rule that says "Be respectful of other users and their opinions" and "obey the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]", but this becomes a really easy rule to break with how divisive and black and white politics has become. What are people's thoughts on implementing this "no politics" rule, or if this becomes something that some people really want to discuss, adding a "politics quarantine" channel so that people that don't want to get involved never have to look at it? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm personally ok with political discussion. But I've seen on the discord how people probably have muted the discord or never looked to it because of political discussions that dragged on and on. If it makes people ''that'' uncomfortable, then I'm also ok with "no politics".--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
: A quarantine sounds like a good idea. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are important and i think the arguing won't end just because politics is forbidden to argue about. Everything can be political, after all, so it just becomes a veiled discussion about something else with politics at heart. Like arguing about if certain races are chaotic evil or not and talking about the ingame consequences of issues like this. "If Kobolds are evil by nature, i think genocide against them is justified." Better to have something that can contain the various discussions that can be safely ignored. --[[User:Kara|Kara]] ([[User talk:Kara|talk]]) 13:18, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While I am fine with polite discussions, some users have shown that they simply cannot maintain a civil conversation. Chat Moderators should be within their right and not afraid to hand out warnings or mutes for conversations that threaten to get out of hand. Toxic behaviour has already driven several people out of the discord server and I'd hate to see more go because of a few bad apples. The server should first and foremost be about D&D - all other topics have second place and they shouldn't threaten the integrity of the wiki itself. I'm not a fan of 'quarantine' channels as "#adult topics" (I believe it was called that) simply did not work. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This is going to sound shocking coming from me of all people, but I fully agree with the idea of forbidding any political discussion. Quarantine channels, in my opinion, don't work. As pointed out before, some of us can't discuss things with civility, and I honestly don't think a quarantine channel would really help that much in that regard. It would just keep all the incivility in one area, which would just cause it to inevitably spill out into the rest of the server. The last thing we need is this server suffering the same fate as the previous. To those who want to discuss politics and support the idea of a quarantine channel: That's what DMs are for (direct messages, that is. Not dungeon masters. *winkity wink*) --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm frankly surprised this is even a controversy or a debate. I'm all for a "no politics" rule. If people want to whine and moan about IRL politics, then there are a million more relevant places on the internet to do it than, y'know, an apolitical hobby-related chat for discussing games. Or even better, they can get off the freaking computer for once in their lives and try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber. Just saying. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber." *combination of my laughter from how you wrote that along with some MLG airhorns* --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Okay so I was fine with banning political discussion at first but I've changed my mind. Better to create a quarantine channel for it. Because inevitably, ''something'' is going to come up where a user needs to voice their concerns, but can't because their concerns are "political." For instance, discussing whether or not hate speech should be banned on the discord server? That's a political discussion. So, no. There should be a ban on uncivil / bad faith discussion instead.[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
There's a problem with a ''blanket'' ban on political discourse, that I just realized now. The thing is, it's impossible for anything to be truly apolitical. And frankly, D&D as a hobby hasn't been apolitical for a long time. Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical? And wouldn't banning discussion on that, in turn, be a political statement? Now, I'm all for a ban on, say, whether or not human lives have inherent merit; frankly that shouldn't be a discussion anyways. I'm an ardent supporter of banning hate speech ''in general.'' I also feel that some people [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 make arguments in bad faith] and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense. But, there are going to be times when people will have ''legitimate concerns'' and banning them from raising those concerns on the basis that it's "too political" is, in itself, a political statement. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:No, not everything is political unless you subscribe to some preposterous culturally marxist notion there is no place for a non political private space nor such a thing as a political non-combatant. I find it kind of strange and disturbing that people seem to try to push that mentality these days. <br />
<br />
:"Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical?" - That is a loaded statement with a debatable premise. And no, demanding political change - which is what you are implying you wish to do - is by definition not apolitical.<br />
<br />
:Now you've brought "hate speech" into the conversation. I am ardently opposed to banning hate speech, because the problem with banning so-called "hate speech" is that restricting the voices of a handful of people you disagree with is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to abuse in the name of safety. In my experience, banning and punishing any form of speech is almost always used by dubiously motivated individuals to silence opinions that they subjectively deem "improper" which is not only immoral but a form of intellectual tyranny.<br />
<br />
:"I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense" - Yeah, because those people who take the bait are idiots. No-one is forced at gunpoint to engage into an open, public conversation. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: So... wait, just to be clear... you're saying you want to ban political discourse, but not hate speech?? Also, calling those people who take the bait "idiots" is ignoring how insidious bad faith arguing can actually be. Again: see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 The Card Says Moops]. '''Very''' relevant. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my stance. Hate is an emotion. The "Hate speech" buzzword can be invoked for anything tangientably related to an emotion. What is and is not a political statement, on the other hand, is objective. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Well, if you've got a problem with the hate speech ban, go take it up with rule 1 on the D&D wiki discord server. Start a discussion, try and get it removed, whatever. I ''really'' don't think you'll get much support for that, though. I don't see why we should unban hate speech but not [[Discussion:Updating the Foul Language policy|cussing]]. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I am against a banket ban on political themes, just since that will make a very many users have a directly bad experience with the server when they "accidentally" receive a warning.<br />
:::::I propose that we amend the admin roles on the server, to give the role the power to demand that a topic stops being posted when it's political (per the admin's choice). If the conversation continues, then of course we would use warnings. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::: I don't trust that discord admins would necessarily be able to be "partisan" here, deciding which topics do or do not fall under the blanket ban. Rather, a conversation that has the ''potential'' to be heated can be moved to a quarantine, and then only step in if the conversation ''does'' become heated. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I do trust discord admins to decide when a topic is getting out of hand. They were elected for a reason - to uphold the face of the wiki. Topics inciting hate have no place here and neither do heated discussions in which half of the participants act like children. The DanDwiki is not your personal platform for spreading your political agenda. The only 'Quarantine' that exists here is your DMs. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I think it's pretty easy to tell when a topic is "getting out of hand". It's not rocket science. Heck, and I'm saying that as someone who has probably made some of the most incendiary comments on the discord and caused some discussions to actually go into that "getting out of hand" territory. However, I'll bite - Maybe a "blanket ban" is a bit too much, but if I swear if I see another spat over alignment and racism again... --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Okay so thing is, what you just brought up is EXACTLY the reason WHY a blanket ban won't work. To recap: <code>Off-topic comments removed.</code> So, a blanket ban on political discourse would essentially be saying "Hey, Vark, this concern you're having? That you feel something is (admittedly in this case, mildly) racist? You're not allowed to talk about it," which in turn ''is a political stance.'' It sets a scary precedent. What if something more overt happens in the future? Say someone creates a page that's blatantly racist (like, say, a race that strongly resembles a caricature of a real-world race) to some, but maybe just enough people (which may include the creator) don't immediately realize it's racist and it slips under the radar. Would they not be allowed to raise their concerns over it? Personally, I believe they should, as long as the argument remains civil. Atmittedly, my memories of the argument are Kinda Fuzzy by now, but during that argument I repeatedly tried to find a good compromise. I also tried to understand why my opponents were opposed to my concerns, and was upset because I had multiple concerns and I felt they were being ignored. I was also upset because a lot of people were making fun of me for my concerns, and the whole argument was being treated like a sideshow. In the end, I did appeal to their reasons ("because D&D lore") by using the exact terminology from the D&D race descriptions of alignment, where the strongest wording used is "tends towards X," which means I got exactly what I want, and in a way that I guess was fine with everyone else. A compromise, but ''even better,'' really, since Everyone Wins, No Concessions Needed. That would not have happened if I was not allowed to raise my concerns. The race would still use wording I disliked, and I would be unable to do anything about it. It's impossible to make this space apolitical because right wing and left wing ideology influences A LOT of what we say, do, and believe. If you put right wing and left wing people in a room together, those ideologies are going to clash, even if the topic of politics isn't ''explicitly'' brought up. So, if you want an echo chamber / safe space where you can avoid left wing ideology, you'd have to go to a community completely devoid of left wing folks. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:56, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your entire argument became a moot point as soon as you mentioned 'civil discussion'. You are the first person to come to mind when I think of "People who cannot keep a discussion civil". The fact that you are writing out the entire Marilith discussion again in an attempt to push your original points in said discussion speaks for itself. This is not a platform to push your agenda, this is a discussion about politics and D&D. If people can hold a civil discussion about politics, that would be cool. The sad truth, however, is that some users (including yourself) cannot remain civil in a discussion, turning the whole thing into a 'sideshow' as you call it. That's the last I'm willing to say about it as there is no reasoning with you. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::::: I just went back and reread the whole "hate speech" debate. Which wasn't even a debate I wanted to ''participate'' in. It's true, the part where I dismissed MSO's argument by posting a screenshot of how I had him blocked WAS pretty rude of me. I apologize for that. But, like, that argument WAS getting heated ON both sides, and it SHOULD have stopped a while ago. But in terms of actual ''attacks?'' that was on you guys. I never attacked you, or Redhawk. The worst insult I gave either of you was when I said "yea you're right, debating with someone whose views aren't gonna change is a pretty silly waste of time" which was as much an attack on myself as it was on you. Beyond that, I never called you toxic, or immature, nor accused either of you of being able to converse like a normal human being. The FACT that protecting hate speech apparently even WAS a topic of discussion led to a user feeling uncomfortable and leaving the discord, because as it turns out, extreme right wing ideology tends to make people feel unsafe. As such, I do feel there should be a quarantine so people who don't want to participate can mute the channel, and moderators should step in when discussion gets heated. Maybe we can figure out what specific topics are so incendiary that they shouldn't even begin? As a potential starting point for any such list I'd agree to not to bring up punching nazis, egging islamaphobes, or eating the rich if we as a community can also agree to not to defend viewpoints that fall under the "content of a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nature" part of rule #1 of the discord, which would include "protecting hate speech." Anyways, since that's the last you're willing to say on the topic, I'm fine with accepting my culpability in the heatedness of that particular discussion. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:39, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I really have no idea what type of consensus is being discussed. It seems like some users have an agenda which we are not discussing. This discussion is about how we want to, if and when, offer a policy to censor posts on discord. The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::"The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat." This is the proposal I wholly stand behind. Maybe we can start a fresh discussion by putting the indentation back to one with that proposal? -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 13:23, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
: "...women being discriminated against in D&D meetups..." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFGVbJQIy0 As the ancient Hawaiians used to say...] --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 23:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: Just because you've never seen it (or chosen to ignore it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. all. the. time. [https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+experiences+with+D%26D+site:www.reddit.com&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbrZ2d0JzhAhVCpIMKHUaiDo0QrQIoBDAAegQIBxAL&biw=1760&bih=886 A quick google search turns up thread after thread of women talking about their experiences with sexism over the past decade]. So there's your citation. Sure, it's not a universal experience, but it's an all-too common one. That's not the topic of discussion right now, though. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"That's not the topic of discussion right now, though" Then why respond in the first place? --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Please, neither of you continue this conversation thread. This is a discussion about whether users should be trusted to remain civil with one another when discussing political topics, not about discrimination of any sort in the TTRPG community. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Please, stay on topic and help the community reach a consensus. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 01:02, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I understand. My apologizes. --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with {{user|Green Dragon}}'s words on this. My thoughts and feelings but in much less words. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> <small><small>13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Discord Moderators'''</big></big><br><br />
Sort of in line with {{user|Geodude671}} post above, moderators. Admins are automatically bestowed with moderator rights. Mods would help make sure respect is given to users. Geodude is the most available admin/mod on the Discord, followed by CL then myself. Even with some of our availability we really only answer SRD/balance questions. I think using the Wiki to have a Request for Moderator (or whatever is deemed) would be helpful. Users like {{user|ConcealedWife}} are already trying to do these things on Discord, and perhaps being a mod would bestow help to those trying to keep the peace.<br />
<br />
:I've actually been toying with this idea for some time now. While I'm in no way experienced enough (nor do I currently aspire) to be an admin, I would be interested in becoming a discord chat moderator. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I think this would be very beneficial, though we'd need to work out specifics. I personally think {{user|ConcealedWife}} and {{user|Yanied}} would be good candidates for the first non-admin moderators. <br />
:Should Discord moderators also get mod privileges in the tavern chat? It's probably not necessary with how low activity in the tavern is, but it could be nice to have. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I don't see why not. I can see how that would be helpful. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that this makes sense. To grant users these rights we will need a similar process to an [[RfA]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Chanting: "rFm! rFm!". All jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind being the first to go through this process once we reach consensus. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 07:21, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I can get behind this protocol. But the specifics will need to be fleshed out before anyone gets too excited. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::went bold and created [[D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation]]. Hopefully the discussion page can be a good place to discuss criteria and considerations for this process. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 09:00, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Just to sorta start the ball, I would suggest that a mod be able to mute users and change roles. Kicking and warning users, and creating/deleting channels might be better reserved for admins. When I picture a mod, I imagine someone to quell disagreements and intermediate. And I don't mean to imply that admins are better people or have better judgement than what a mod would. Just the idea of mod from my experience has monitored chat. I am sure other servers mods can do more, which feel free to discuss. I am just pushing the ball. wooooooooooooo! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:18, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Further pushing that ball after it's been still for a bit, I feel a chat mod should do just what is relevant to chat. So I don't find the monitoring of roles a necessary role for them, just the ability to mute users or maybe issue limited warnings (though it is understandable if that is not possible).--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I am against this on a number of grounds:<br><br />
1) Especially with me now in the Discord (P.S. GD I need admin role there whenever it's convenient for you), there are plenty of admins in the server. Me, CL, Geodude and BSFM are all active daily.<br><br />
2) Giving special roles to users was one of the things that cause strife in the other server. Giving special privileges? I think that sends the wrong message.<br><br />
3) Just to compound the two above, there is no ''need'' to give special moderator privileges to users just for the sake of it.<br><br />
4) Frankly, CW's involvement in this sends the wrong message IMO. I quite honestly worry about the implications of her and CL both having moderation privileges, given their past history. But I will concede part of this might be latent distrust over my history with CW. If anyone believes that is the case, ignore this point.<br><br />
5) I also worry about the precedent this sets, considering that the Discord server's "constitution" limits the servers' autonomy and ability to set its own policies. In my opinion, this would be a gross overstep of the server's bounds. Though the ramifications would theoretically be contained to Discord, history has shown that too much power in Discord has the side-effect of harming D&D Wiki. We've all witnessed this, unfortunately :( --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1181645Discussion:Discord Policy2019-06-05T23:42:05Z<p>GamerAim: /* ~ BigShotFancyMan talk contributions 13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT) */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
<inputbox><br />
type=commenttitle<br />
break=no<br />
align=right<br />
minor=true<br />
nosummary=true<br />
hidden=yes<br />
buttonlabel=Add New Comment<br />
default= ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small><br />
page={{FULLPAGENAME}}<br />
width=45<br />
</inputbox><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING ABOVE IT --><br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]])&nbsp;<small><small>01:21, 8 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
The basis for policies on D&D Wiki's [https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV official discord server] has been layed out with [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Official D&D Wiki Discord Server Policies Referendums|this discussion]]. Consensus may change, so please include any policy referendums for the discord server on this page. Any policy discussions must take place here, since policy discussions on discord do not have any bearing for the server.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small>Official Discord Server link location<small>14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I feel the link to the D&D wiki's discord server is a little hidden away right now. It took me a while to find the community portal on the main page; I don't think I'd ever noticed that link before. Meanwhile, the currently very underused Tavern Chatroom is displayed on the navigation and on the main page. Personally, I think the link to the Tavern Chatroom could be outright replaced with the link to the discord server, though I have no problems with it remaining where it is. It's not unusual for a wiki community to have a discord server that's proudly displayed with a large logo; take for instance the [https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/D%26D_5th_Edition_Wikia D&D 5e wikia].<br />
<br />
I should say why this could be important. When looking at the tavern chatroom logs, some of the most recent messages as of this writing are variants of "is anybody there?" spread out over a week. Most recently, a newcomer asks if the Tavern is always this empty, and then they're given the link to the official discord.<br />
<br />
Since a newcomer's first experience with trying to join the D&D wiki community's chatroom will almost certainly be the tavern chat (as it is more prominently displayed), they may get a false idea of how active the community is, which may discourage them. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
* [https://i.imgur.com/faltlSA.png A screenshot of the tavern chatroom messages I was talking about]<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>14:43, 15 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
I too have thought this for other things. I am use to communities prominently displaying a Discord server link as well, along with their other pages though. Maybe a bigger discussion if those get brought up.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) <small><small>05:40, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Something like this? [[File:Discord Logo.png|75px|link=https://discord.gg/EnsRxSV]] We could add this to the [[Main Page]], as well as on the sidebar (if anyone knows if its possible to add an image to [[Mediawiki:Sidebar]], otherwise it can be added below it like the FB was before) if we can agree on doing this.<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>07:49, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
That link is beautifully! Hope others agree with its addition to the sidebar.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>09:21, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
i agree<br />
<br />
== {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} <small><small>10:13, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Looks good to me. Let's add it.<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>10:28, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
This looks like consensus to me, so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing.<br />
<br />
== [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) <small><small>12:02, 16 December 2018 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
Awesome! Thanks<br />
<br />
== [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) <small><small>13:23, 19 February 2019 (MST)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Announcing Featured Article Nominees in the #Announcements channel'''</big></big><br><br><br />
As someone continually wanting to drive traffic to these pages, are there objections to sharing a link to the FA page letting Discord users know these discussion are waiting for input. At the very least, posting there once a month-I'd prefer to ping @everyone when that happened. Extra posts would be to put out a new article has been nominated, but @everyone wouldn't be used for that, just the (proposed) monthly one. So yeah...thoughts?<br />
<br />
:That seems like a reasonable use for the #announcements channel as it doesn't get much use. Though I believe it should act as more of a feed when a new article is added and only pinging the relevant system as not all users will find updates for other systems they don't know interesting. Other then that I support the general idea. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:03, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::No objections here. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 14:38, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Good Idea to use relevant system pings CL. I’ll post in announcements soon and if someone thinks it’s not good I’ll adjust. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . <small><small>12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
===Political Discussion on the Server===<br />
{{user|RedHawk007}} brought up that political discussion is something that tends to spark arguments and flame wars, and he proposed implementing a "no politics" rule on that basis, and other users have expressed similar sentiments, which I can understand and appreciate after myself having gotten into a heated political debate a couple of days ago. We already have a rule that says "Be respectful of other users and their opinions" and "obey the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]", but this becomes a really easy rule to break with how divisive and black and white politics has become. What are people's thoughts on implementing this "no politics" rule, or if this becomes something that some people really want to discuss, adding a "politics quarantine" channel so that people that don't want to get involved never have to look at it? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm personally ok with political discussion. But I've seen on the discord how people probably have muted the discord or never looked to it because of political discussions that dragged on and on. If it makes people ''that'' uncomfortable, then I'm also ok with "no politics".--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
: A quarantine sounds like a good idea. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are important and i think the arguing won't end just because politics is forbidden to argue about. Everything can be political, after all, so it just becomes a veiled discussion about something else with politics at heart. Like arguing about if certain races are chaotic evil or not and talking about the ingame consequences of issues like this. "If Kobolds are evil by nature, i think genocide against them is justified." Better to have something that can contain the various discussions that can be safely ignored. --[[User:Kara|Kara]] ([[User talk:Kara|talk]]) 13:18, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:While I am fine with polite discussions, some users have shown that they simply cannot maintain a civil conversation. Chat Moderators should be within their right and not afraid to hand out warnings or mutes for conversations that threaten to get out of hand. Toxic behaviour has already driven several people out of the discord server and I'd hate to see more go because of a few bad apples. The server should first and foremost be about D&D - all other topics have second place and they shouldn't threaten the integrity of the wiki itself. I'm not a fan of 'quarantine' channels as "#adult topics" (I believe it was called that) simply did not work. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This is going to sound shocking coming from me of all people, but I fully agree with the idea of forbidding any political discussion. Quarantine channels, in my opinion, don't work. As pointed out before, some of us can't discuss things with civility, and I honestly don't think a quarantine channel would really help that much in that regard. It would just keep all the incivility in one area, which would just cause it to inevitably spill out into the rest of the server. The last thing we need is this server suffering the same fate as the previous. To those who want to discuss politics and support the idea of a quarantine channel: That's what DMs are for (direct messages, that is. Not dungeon masters. *winkity wink*) --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm frankly surprised this is even a controversy or a debate. I'm all for a "no politics" rule. If people want to whine and moan about IRL politics, then there are a million more relevant places on the internet to do it than, y'know, an apolitical hobby-related chat for discussing games. Or even better, they can get off the freaking computer for once in their lives and try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber. Just saying. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber." *combination of my laughter from how you wrote that along with some MLG airhorns* --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Okay so I was fine with banning political discussion at first but I've changed my mind. Better to create a quarantine channel for it. Because inevitably, ''something'' is going to come up where a user needs to voice their concerns, but can't because their concerns are "political." For instance, discussing whether or not hate speech should be banned on the discord server? That's a political discussion. So, no. There should be a ban on uncivil / bad faith discussion instead.[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
There's a problem with a ''blanket'' ban on political discourse, that I just realized now. The thing is, it's impossible for anything to be truly apolitical. And frankly, D&D as a hobby hasn't been apolitical for a long time. Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical? And wouldn't banning discussion on that, in turn, be a political statement? Now, I'm all for a ban on, say, whether or not human lives have inherent merit; frankly that shouldn't be a discussion anyways. I'm an ardent supporter of banning hate speech ''in general.'' I also feel that some people [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 make arguments in bad faith] and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense. But, there are going to be times when people will have ''legitimate concerns'' and banning them from raising those concerns on the basis that it's "too political" is, in itself, a political statement. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:No, not everything is political unless you subscribe to some preposterous culturally marxist notion there is no place for a non political private space nor such a thing as a political non-combatant. I find it kind of strange and disturbing that people seem to try to push that mentality these days. <br />
<br />
:"Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical?" - That is a loaded statement with a debatable premise. And no, demanding political change - which is what you are implying you wish to do - is by definition not apolitical.<br />
<br />
:Now you've brought "hate speech" into the conversation. I am ardently opposed to banning hate speech, because the problem with banning so-called "hate speech" is that restricting the voices of a handful of people you disagree with is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to abuse in the name of safety. In my experience, banning and punishing any form of speech is almost always used by dubiously motivated individuals to silence opinions that they subjectively deem "improper" which is not only immoral but a form of intellectual tyranny.<br />
<br />
:"I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense" - Yeah, because those people who take the bait are idiots. No-one is forced at gunpoint to engage into an open, public conversation. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: So... wait, just to be clear... you're saying you want to ban political discourse, but not hate speech?? Also, calling those people who take the bait "idiots" is ignoring how insidious bad faith arguing can actually be. Again: see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 The Card Says Moops]. '''Very''' relevant. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my stance. Hate is an emotion. The "Hate speech" buzzword can be invoked for anything tangientably related to an emotion. What is and is not a political statement, on the other hand, is objective. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Well, if you've got a problem with the hate speech ban, go take it up with rule 1 on the D&D wiki discord server. Start a discussion, try and get it removed, whatever. I ''really'' don't think you'll get much support for that, though. I don't see why we should unban hate speech but not [[Discussion:Updating the Foul Language policy|cussing]]. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I am against a banket ban on political themes, just since that will make a very many users have a directly bad experience with the server when they "accidentally" receive a warning.<br />
:::::I propose that we amend the admin roles on the server, to give the role the power to demand that a topic stops being posted when it's political (per the admin's choice). If the conversation continues, then of course we would use warnings. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::: I don't trust that discord admins would necessarily be able to be "partisan" here, deciding which topics do or do not fall under the blanket ban. Rather, a conversation that has the ''potential'' to be heated can be moved to a quarantine, and then only step in if the conversation ''does'' become heated. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I do trust discord admins to decide when a topic is getting out of hand. They were elected for a reason - to uphold the face of the wiki. Topics inciting hate have no place here and neither do heated discussions in which half of the participants act like children. The DanDwiki is not your personal platform for spreading your political agenda. The only 'Quarantine' that exists here is your DMs. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I think it's pretty easy to tell when a topic is "getting out of hand". It's not rocket science. Heck, and I'm saying that as someone who has probably made some of the most incendiary comments on the discord and caused some discussions to actually go into that "getting out of hand" territory. However, I'll bite - Maybe a "blanket ban" is a bit too much, but if I swear if I see another spat over alignment and racism again... --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Okay so thing is, what you just brought up is EXACTLY the reason WHY a blanket ban won't work. To recap: <code>Off-topic comments removed.</code> So, a blanket ban on political discourse would essentially be saying "Hey, Vark, this concern you're having? That you feel something is (admittedly in this case, mildly) racist? You're not allowed to talk about it," which in turn ''is a political stance.'' It sets a scary precedent. What if something more overt happens in the future? Say someone creates a page that's blatantly racist (like, say, a race that strongly resembles a caricature of a real-world race) to some, but maybe just enough people (which may include the creator) don't immediately realize it's racist and it slips under the radar. Would they not be allowed to raise their concerns over it? Personally, I believe they should, as long as the argument remains civil. Atmittedly, my memories of the argument are Kinda Fuzzy by now, but during that argument I repeatedly tried to find a good compromise. I also tried to understand why my opponents were opposed to my concerns, and was upset because I had multiple concerns and I felt they were being ignored. I was also upset because a lot of people were making fun of me for my concerns, and the whole argument was being treated like a sideshow. In the end, I did appeal to their reasons ("because D&D lore") by using the exact terminology from the D&D race descriptions of alignment, where the strongest wording used is "tends towards X," which means I got exactly what I want, and in a way that I guess was fine with everyone else. A compromise, but ''even better,'' really, since Everyone Wins, No Concessions Needed. That would not have happened if I was not allowed to raise my concerns. The race would still use wording I disliked, and I would be unable to do anything about it. It's impossible to make this space apolitical because right wing and left wing ideology influences A LOT of what we say, do, and believe. If you put right wing and left wing people in a room together, those ideologies are going to clash, even if the topic of politics isn't ''explicitly'' brought up. So, if you want an echo chamber / safe space where you can avoid left wing ideology, you'd have to go to a community completely devoid of left wing folks. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:56, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your entire argument became a moot point as soon as you mentioned 'civil discussion'. You are the first person to come to mind when I think of "People who cannot keep a discussion civil". The fact that you are writing out the entire Marilith discussion again in an attempt to push your original points in said discussion speaks for itself. This is not a platform to push your agenda, this is a discussion about politics and D&D. If people can hold a civil discussion about politics, that would be cool. The sad truth, however, is that some users (including yourself) cannot remain civil in a discussion, turning the whole thing into a 'sideshow' as you call it. That's the last I'm willing to say about it as there is no reasoning with you. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::::: I just went back and reread the whole "hate speech" debate. Which wasn't even a debate I wanted to ''participate'' in. It's true, the part where I dismissed MSO's argument by posting a screenshot of how I had him blocked WAS pretty rude of me. I apologize for that. But, like, that argument WAS getting heated ON both sides, and it SHOULD have stopped a while ago. But in terms of actual ''attacks?'' that was on you guys. I never attacked you, or Redhawk. The worst insult I gave either of you was when I said "yea you're right, debating with someone whose views aren't gonna change is a pretty silly waste of time" which was as much an attack on myself as it was on you. Beyond that, I never called you toxic, or immature, nor accused either of you of being able to converse like a normal human being. The FACT that protecting hate speech apparently even WAS a topic of discussion led to a user feeling uncomfortable and leaving the discord, because as it turns out, extreme right wing ideology tends to make people feel unsafe. As such, I do feel there should be a quarantine so people who don't want to participate can mute the channel, and moderators should step in when discussion gets heated. Maybe we can figure out what specific topics are so incendiary that they shouldn't even begin? As a potential starting point for any such list I'd agree to not to bring up punching nazis, egging islamaphobes, or eating the rich if we as a community can also agree to not to defend viewpoints that fall under the "content of a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nature" part of rule #1 of the discord, which would include "protecting hate speech." Anyways, since that's the last you're willing to say on the topic, I'm fine with accepting my culpability in the heatedness of that particular discussion. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:39, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I really have no idea what type of consensus is being discussed. It seems like some users have an agenda which we are not discussing. This discussion is about how we want to, if and when, offer a policy to censor posts on discord. The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::"The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat." This is the proposal I wholly stand behind. Maybe we can start a fresh discussion by putting the indentation back to one with that proposal? -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 13:23, 26 March 2019 (MDT) <br />
<br />
: "...women being discriminated against in D&D meetups..." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFGVbJQIy0 As the ancient Hawaiians used to say...] --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 23:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: Just because you've never seen it (or chosen to ignore it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. all. the. time. [https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+experiences+with+D%26D+site:www.reddit.com&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbrZ2d0JzhAhVCpIMKHUaiDo0QrQIoBDAAegQIBxAL&biw=1760&bih=886 A quick google search turns up thread after thread of women talking about their experiences with sexism over the past decade]. So there's your citation. Sure, it's not a universal experience, but it's an all-too common one. That's not the topic of discussion right now, though. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"That's not the topic of discussion right now, though" Then why respond in the first place? --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Please, neither of you continue this conversation thread. This is a discussion about whether users should be trusted to remain civil with one another when discussing political topics, not about discrimination of any sort in the TTRPG community. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Please, stay on topic and help the community reach a consensus. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 01:02, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I understand. My apologizes. --[[User:MetalShadowOverlord|MetalShadowOverlord]] ([[User talk:MetalShadowOverlord|talk]]) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with {{user|Green Dragon}}'s words on this. My thoughts and feelings but in much less words. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> <small><small>13:12, 22 March 2019 (MDT)</small></small> ==<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''Discord Moderators'''</big></big><br><br />
Sort of in line with {{user|Geodude671}} post above, moderators. Admins are automatically bestowed with moderator rights. Mods would help make sure respect is given to users. Geodude is the most available admin/mod on the Discord, followed by CL then myself. Even with some of our availability we really only answer SRD/balance questions. I think using the Wiki to have a Request for Moderator (or whatever is deemed) would be helpful. Users like {{user|ConcealedWife}} are already trying to do these things on Discord, and perhaps being a mod would bestow help to those trying to keep the peace.<br />
<br />
:I've actually been toying with this idea for some time now. While I'm in no way experienced enough (nor do I currently aspire) to be an admin, I would be interested in becoming a discord chat moderator. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I think this would be very beneficial, though we'd need to work out specifics. I personally think {{user|ConcealedWife}} and {{user|Yanied}} would be good candidates for the first non-admin moderators. <br />
:Should Discord moderators also get mod privileges in the tavern chat? It's probably not necessary with how low activity in the tavern is, but it could be nice to have. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I don't see why not. I can see how that would be helpful. [[User:Quincy|Based Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that this makes sense. To grant users these rights we will need a similar process to an [[RfA]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Chanting: "rFm! rFm!". All jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind being the first to go through this process once we reach consensus. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ ([[Special:Contributions/ConcealedWife|Contributions]]) ([[User_talk:ConcealedWife|Squa]]) 07:21, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I can get behind this protocol. But the specifics will need to be fleshed out before anyone gets too excited. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::went bold and created [[D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation]]. Hopefully the discussion page can be a good place to discuss criteria and considerations for this process. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 09:00, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Just to sorta start the ball, I would suggest that a mod be able to mute users and change roles. Kicking and warning users, and creating/deleting channels might be better reserved for admins. When I picture a mod, I imagine someone to quell disagreements and intermediate. And I don't mean to imply that admins are better people or have better judgement than what a mod would. Just the idea of mod from my experience has monitored chat. I am sure other servers mods can do more, which feel free to discuss. I am just pushing the ball. wooooooooooooo! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:18, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Further pushing that ball after it's been still for a bit, I feel a chat mod should do just what is relevant to chat. So I don't find the monitoring of roles a necessary role for them, just the ability to mute users or maybe issue limited warnings (though it is understandable if that is not possible).--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I am against this on a number of grounds:<br />
1) Especially with me now in the Discord (P.S. GD I need admin role there whenever it's convenient for you), there are plenty of admins in the server. Me, CL, Geodude and BSFM are all active daily.<br />
2) Giving special roles to users was one of the things that cause strife in the other server. Giving special privileges? I think that sends the wrong message.<br />
3) Just to compound the two above, there is no ''need'' to give special moderator privileges to users just for the sake of it.<br />
4) Frankly, CW's involvement in this sends the wrong message IMO. I quite honestly worry about the implications of her and CL both having moderation privileges, given their past history. But I will concede part of this might be latent distrust over my history with CW. If anyone believes that is the case, ignore this point.<br />
5) I also worry about the precedent this sets, considering that the Discord server's "constitution" limits the servers' autonomy and ability to set its own policies. In my opinion, this would be a gross overstep of the server's bounds. Though the ramifications would theoretically be contained to Discord, history has shown that too much power in Discord has the side-effect of harming D&D Wiki. We've all witnessed this, unfortunately :( --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181517User talk:Admin2019-06-05T17:56:06Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::because it’s a highly subjective topic and futile effort to prove. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:48, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's not subjective or hard to prove if we have proof of users declaring some form of relationship. In the instance of CL and CW, this has been affirmed by them both on multiple occasions. In this case, the relationship has been proved. I see no harm in making this policy, so long as it's clear that only confirmed relationships apply. Heck, I'll even concede that I shouldn't be allowed to administrate SgtLion.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Edit: I'd like to note that this isn't about CL and CW. I only just returned and don't know anything about CL and CW and Vark, so this isn't in response to anything anyone did recently. I'm just supporting a user/admin who brought up the same concerns that I did by providing a simple, no-harm policy to allay any concerns users may have.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181515User talk:Admin2019-06-05T17:51:32Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::because it’s a highly subjective topic and futile effort to prove. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:48, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It's not subjective or hard to prove if we have proof of users declaring some form of relationship. In the instance of CL and CW, this has been affirmed by them both on multiple occasions. In this case, the relationship has been proved. I see no harm in making this policy, so long as it's clear that only confirmed relationships apply. Heck, I'll even concede that I shouldn't be allowed to administrate SgtLion.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181507User talk:Admin2019-06-05T17:36:48Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This was a ridiculous request suggested in frustration of perceived abuse between ConcealedLight and ConcealedWife after Vark’s review of a page CW rewrote. Any sort of favoritism cannot be proved and any attempts at it will only undo friendships and good working will of the site. I apologize for my shortsightedness in the matter. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:34, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::There's no need to apologize. If there's an issue, it needs to be confronted whether the accused parties like it or not. If they're making you or other users feel unwelcome or unhappy here, ''that'' must take priority. Not being able to prove favoritism is perhaps a good reason to restrict powers where a relationship ''has'' been proven. Not just favoritism, but also personal non-site grudges.<br />
:::::As I've said, instituting such a policy should have no negative effects as we have enough admins to cover for a rare conflict of interest. Considering this and the potential to safeguard against abuse, I cannot see why GD would object to it when two long-standing admins with a proven track record have voiced favor for such a policy.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1181502Talk:Main Page2019-06-05T17:18:25Z<p>GamerAim: /* Page Appreciation */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181485User talk:Admin2019-06-05T16:24:54Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ added a reply</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, we can only do something when we are aware of situations. At this time though, there are apparently none. Just good friends. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:19, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::FWIW I think it's still nepotism between good friends. Admins shouldn't make rulings or use privileges for IRL acquaintances. There are enough admins that this rule wouldn't pose an issue.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Design_Disclaimer&diff=1181431Template talk:Design Disclaimer2019-06-05T13:57:33Z<p>GamerAim: /* Display change */ Added a positive reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>== Use ==<br />
<br />
I wonder if this template is useful. If things are designed outside of game guidelines they are not designed for D&D. Shouldn't they just be replaced with [[Template:Needsbalance]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:39, 29 July 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I think a classic example is the discussion being had at [[Talk:Fary (5e Race)]]. There's nothing wrong conceptually with a flying PC. But traditionally adventures are written with the understanding that PC's can't routinely fly until a certain level. A flying PC can attack low-level monsters without fear of retribution. A flying PC can fly to the top of the tower and retrieve the quest item (while at high levels it is expected that the players have a lot of different mobility options). However if the DM knows ahead of time that there's a 1st level flying PC, these encounters can be adjusted accordingly and everyone's happy.<br />
<br />
:I have a suggestion. I'd like to see this template more as a "designer's notes" style side-box rather than a header, what do you think? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:35, 19 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I actually agree with Green Dragon. The wording is incorrect. A disclaimer of this sort should really only be necessary for issues not relating to guidelines or precedent. If something is outside the guidelines, it is imbalanced. However, if something has conceptual issues which may cause debate/problems at the table, a disclaimer may be necessary. A good example is, indeed, any race with the ability to fly, but also the ability to tunnel, turn invisible, read minds, breathe underwater, or pass through physical barriers; as such characters are theoretically capable of circumventing the standard barriers which confine players to the intended play area in published adventures, and are difficult for new players and DMs to conceptualize, remember and account for. Another good example are races with extra heads or more than two grasping-limbs, as the extra anatomy simply is not anticipated by the core rules. Some content, like [[Rubber Forehead Alien (5e Race)]], may be dramatically and mechanically unique compared to other content of the same type, to the point that some players may take exception to it. More examples used to be be found in weapons with unusual (though still mechanically valid) weapon trait combinations, such as a heavy/light weapon, a 2handed/light weapon, a ranged weapon which consumes no ammo, melee weapons which do consume ammo, melee weapons with the loading property but without consuming ammo, etc. ''(As a point, all of the weapons I made which used these combinations of traits have been subsequently edited away because people cannot accept the mechanical compatibility of the features, or because they wanted the item name to simulate its namesake rather than be unique. They cannot accept the weapons as game constructs- a perfect example of what such a disclaimer is intended to announce and explain.)'' It may be necessary for pages which add to racial or class features, like adding new subrace or class archetypes. Technically, neither subraces nor class archetypes are independent content- they are part of a feature. For example, my [[Subrace Human (5e Race Variant)|humanoid subraces]] that allow crossraces through subrace templates really stretch the concept thin to achieve their goal. The [[Ceremorphous (5e Subrace)]] does this even more so. Some variant rules may benefit from this, to separate examples and implementation details from actual rules description and explanation. That way, the rules can be read in a more straight-forward fashion, and play implementation discussion is separate. I can probably make use of this on almost every page I've ever posted to the wiki. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 18:55, 19 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
It should read, "This content goes beyond the scope of the anticipated subjects and situations the 5th edition rules were intended to handle, and may be conceptually problematic for some players. When implementing this content, DMs and Players should consider the following: ..." --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 20:47, 19 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
:That sounds about right, I didn't feel the original message was quite appropriate.<br />
:Just some thoughts... There are several types of pages:<br />
:1) Those that made with good intentions to work in a regular D&D game, and work mechanically, but end up overpowered or underpowered compared to published material - we use "needsbalance"<br />
:2) Pages that do not work mechanically, e.g. 5e pages that mix in 3.5e mechanics (which I've seen many times!) or that read like the author hasn't even read the rulebook. - at the moment we are using "needsbalance", although this isn't a ''balance'' issue. <br />
:3) Pages that are basically okay but might be missing one or two mechanical details ("this feature doesn't have a saving throw DC") - we've been using needsbalance<br />
:4) Those made with the full understanding of D&D mechanics and balance, and knowingly break those standards - we use "design disclamer" (another example for your prefab templates Kydo is the Large-sized PC.)<br />
:4a) A design disclaimer doesn't excuse 1 or 2 or 3. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:18, 22 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: 1) Yes, that's needsbalance, by definition I'd think. That, and anything intentionally constructed to be god-mode, OP, min-maxing, mary-sue bait.<br />
:: 2) Really? I would, and do, use the stub template for those. They're incomplete in the context of the edition's rules. Maybe wikify?<br />
:: 3) I would also use stub for that. It's incomplete.<br />
:: 4) Ehn, I think you and I disagree on the standards of balance, but that's not really the subject at hand. I would consider the disclaimer important for two types of pages:<br />
::: 4A) Pages which utilize mechanics or features which have been historically divisive in the D&D community, and have a tendency to bring up long-winded debates. (Flying is probably one of the biggest examples, right next to large sized characters.) The balance of these types of mechanics are hotly debated, and there are very good arguments on both sides of the debate. I tried to represent the main issue both sides bring up in regards to those abilities: Those in favor say homebrew material should not be used in adventures designed for core content only, and that a practiced and knowledgeable DM can account for these features, as long as they are quantifiably comparable with other material of the same level. Those against say compatibility with published material is the hallmark of balanced design, and that designs which include features which can be abused by immature players or misused by inexperienced players or DMs are fundamentally unbalanced. I am firmly on the "all for it" side for almost all of this, but I tried to keep my bias out of the disclaimers.<br />
::: 4B) Pages that utilize mechanics which are conceptually difficult to visualize or internalize. For example, a weapon that has both the light and heavy tags is mechanically valid, but conceptually impossible. A class which uses spell slots to track spirit servants who can be summoned like spells to manifest as spell effects or class features, that would be mechanically valid, but completely defies the conceptual aspects of what spell slots ''"are"'' and how they were originally intended to work. This content needs the disclaimer so that people reading it can understand that they are looking at a mechanical abstraction, not a strict representation, allowing the material to be understood and used correctly, and protecting the material from arbitrary "correction" of perceived "errors". Such deviation from anticipated representation can be understood in the correct context by doing this. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 21:21, 23 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I know this might be a bit silly to bring up here, but I'd like a template that covers transformational variants in place of a needsBalance template. For example, we all know [[Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)|Races of War]] material would be ridiculous if bits and pieces were thrown into a 3.5 game without implementing the whole system, but the sourcebook contests 3.5's [[SRD]] (and all of 3.5 edition, really) ''inherent imbalance'' and seeks to correct it. It does really well at doing so, and the classes and feats it proposes are flavorful and fun, even if not everyone's cup of tea.<br />
<br />
::::But they, were it not for constant vigil, seem to get marked with needsBalance every now and then, despite this.<br />
<br />
::::I suppose what I'm saying is that needsBalance is a negative template: It asserts something is wrong with the page and needs to be changed. When it comes to items that intentionally seek to be imbalanced due to a mission statement or driving philosophy (flaws are free feats, and that shouldn't be the case; Melee is awful, and that shouldn't be the case; [[SRD:Paladin|Paladins]] and [[SRD:Fighter|Fighters]] are awful, ineffective tier 5 classes who can't even melee, and that shouldn't be the case; etc.) and do end up producing items that are imbalanced when compared to their original incarnations or inspirations ([[Fighter, Tirr (3.5e Class)|Fighter, Tirr]] -> [[SRD:Fighter|Fighter]], [[Paladin, Tirr (3.5e Class)|Paladin, Tirr]] -> [[SRD:Paladin|Paladin]], etc.), but are not necessarily imbalanced when considered against the game as a whole (instead of comparing the Tirr Paladin to the normal Paladin, compare it instead to other Tier 3 classes, like the Warblade), I think there should be a different, informative template noting the difference in balance, but also asserting the above-mentioned mission statement or philosophy.<br />
<br />
::::If that was confusing, the short version is that I think there should be an alternative needsBalance template that allows for works that go outside of our traditional views of balance for pages that are transformational or radically different in nature. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 08:26, 24 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Not confusing, but I think it is a little misguided. To create something like that would presuppose that something can be objectively "balanced". Things can only be "balanced" by comparison to something else- it has to be relative to a standard and understood within context. For example, '''5e''' firearms are perfectly balanced in a modern setting, but totally broken in a fantasy setting. Another issue is the subject of just what something is being balanced for. For example, '''5e''' classes aren't balanced according to combat power alone. Each one gets a blend of combat, exploration, and socialization features. Some are slightly stronger in certain areas than others, (fighters are better at combat than rangers and bards, but rangers are great at exploration, and bards are great at socialization) but ultimately they are balanced with the assumption that the character must perform in the WHOLE game, not just combat, and that there must be challenge and risk in all aspects of the game. This type of balance leaves the ranger and bard... lacking... when it comes to combat. Many people, who consider combat to be the only realm where balance matters, feel that these two classes are underpowered, and I've seen more than a few people trying to "fix" it. (My only complaint with the ranger is that they aren't as good of marksmen as fighter, and the beastmaster archetype weakens the character in all aspects) Another type of balance is balance of authority and spotlight. A class or race which contains mechanics that "steal the show" for more time than is necessary, or allow the character greater authority over what can be changed in the shared imagined situation, are often declared broken by role players. Balance is a big, fat, hairy, complex monster, and trying to assign any sort of objective basis for measuring it is simply impractical. '''I think, for 5th edition content at least, the gold standard should be the developers own words and guidelines.''' The precedent set by their original content can, of course, be an excellent basis, but I don't believe blindly sticking to the mechanical confines of a precedent ensures balanced design or interesting results. So, for example, they said that a class should incorporate a mix of features which provide combat, exploration, and social features. Any class which is well-balanced in combat but ignores either of the other two realms is technically horrendously unbalanced in 5th edition by that standard. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 20:39, 24 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am not sure if you're on the same page, here; My suggestion isn't limited to 5th edition and I fully acknowledge the idea of balance by comparing to the source material and have, for some time.<br />
<br />
::::::That said, I really can't agree with the notion that there's no place for trying to establish balance in other ways, or at the very least, outside of the traditional balancing act of comparing Paladins to Paladins, Fighters to Fighters, etc.. If that were true, then why do we even entertain the idea of [[3.5e_Rules|variant rules]]? I also don't think anyone could make a reasonable argument to say that, for example, 3.5e is totally balanced in its innate state, despite the fact that [[SRD:Wizard|wizards]] are potentially better at anything than any other class, and can be so in respect to a great many classes, at the same time. Not just in combat, but in everything.<br />
<br />
::::::Now, I'm not saying that the wizard should be torn down, or that everything should be so ludicrously powerful, be it in combat or out (and like it or not, combat is considered in such high regard because it is a rather large portion of the game, for many campaigns, and yes, large portions of the game framework centers around it; you can have non-combat encounters, but traditionally they happen less, simply put). What I'm saying is that sometimes you wanna' compare the fancy homebrew paladin rewrite to be more in line with the '''Duskblade'''<sup>([[Player's Handbook II|PHB2]])</sup> in terms of power or potential, instead of the relatively awful 3.5e version that '''can't even do as well as [[SRD:Cleric|clerics]] in its own field of expertise''', and that should be okay.<br />
<br />
::::::Similarly, [[UA:Character Flaws|flaws]] are the silliest bunch of options that anyone was ever given access to, because none of them are worth a [[SRD:Feat|feat]], in most cases. Taking a tiny -3 to [[SRD:Saving Throws#Fortitude|fortitude saves]] is considered to be worth the same value as '''[[SRD:Leadership|Leadership]]''', the single-most broken feat in the entire edition, and '''Divine Metamagic'''<sup>([[Complete Divine|CD]])</sup>, another insanely powerful feat for use by already insanely powerful classes, according to WOTC. Maybe taking a different approach to these things should be something that we can tolerate.<br />
<br />
::::::Let's face it: While saying that 'things can only be balanced when compared to their official counterpart' is good for achieving a common goal and standard for consensus, it sometimes doesn't work when the source material is already '''imbalanced'''. 3.5e has had enough time in the sun for everyone to find all the silly problems and nonsensical items in it, despite being my beloved edition, that I don't think anyone can ever say that it is inherently balanced as-is with a straight face. Don't worry, though, 5th Edition will eventually get there, too. They all do.<br />
<br />
::::::I'm just saying that, because we do support the idea of variant rules, whether they be supplemental, transformational, or even radical, that we should also be open to the possibility of variants in balance; Not necessarily to the point that where we say something like [[Angels, Raven (3.5e Race)|Raven Angels]], which had drastic problems with its design, is balanced, but that the idea of having a stronger paladin more comparable with a duskblade, or having tougher flaws, can be different without being considered wrong. A disclaimer for that, perhaps, isn't such a bad thing.<br />
<br />
::::::Things like [[Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)|Races of War]] shouldn't have to fend off template after template, every couple of days, just because they decided to try and address the already existing inadequacies of melee combat in the revised 3rd edition. It's different when it is something like how the [[Fighter, Tome (3.5e Class)|Tome Fighter]] was able to effectively shut down any creature permanently at 15th level, and then some, because that is easily broken by any standards... but when the feats of the sourcebook, such as [[Horde Breaker (3.5e Feat)|Horde Breaker]], [[Command (3.5e Feat)|Command]], and [[Murderous Intent (3.5e Feat)|Murderous Intent]] are getting tagged with deletion and needsbalance templates because they are being compared to feats they are supposed to be replacing, and are doing so because the source material is based on a radically transformational variant rule to begin with, it seems like we're lacking in the means to identify it as such. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 09:11, 27 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Obviously the standards of balance are based on the game edition one is talking about. It would be stupid to try and balance 3.5e content with 5e guidelines. 3.5e classes are ''combat classes'' built with their function in combat as their primary focus. My examples are from 5e, because I haven't played any of the older editions in at least three years. It's been 9 years since I last played AD&D, and 5 since I last cracked a basic set core book. Also, I specified that precedent, (which is what you're talking about) while important, is not the be-all/end-all of balance. That's why I don't put much stock in the Same Game Tests people run to compare their combat efficacy against combat encounters of equivalent CR. If anything, such tests clearly demonstrate that the core material of older editions is not balanced, and therefore invalidates the use of precedent as a reliable metric for balance. Simply put, ''the classes are not playing the same game''. An SGT for 5e would not make sense however, because the intended balance and structure of the game is radically different. (It would need to include challenges like surviving in a winter forest for a set period of time, navigating a maze, interrogating prisoners, and many other more abstract situations.) As for Races of War and other pages like it, if the whole purpose is to balance non-casting combat classes to be equivalent, thereby leveling the playing field, then it should be quite obvious that, as long as the math actually comes out even, then it is balanced. (A similar page that nerfs casters to be on par with mundanes would be the same) The page states its purpose and goal quite clearly right at the top already. If people aren't willing to even read a page before judging it, then they aren't going to read a disclaimer either. In such a case, repeated application of an invalid maintenance template is basically vandalism and should be treated as such. (Or, at least, I think it should be.) Additionally, I don't think variant rules can be "balanced". Balance only exists within a system. Rules ARE the system. So, while a variant rule may create an exploit which makes some content unstable or OP, that does not mean the variant rule is unbalanced, it has simply failed to account for its impact on some game content. In such a case, the variant rule would be, in my mind, incomplete. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 20:40, 27 May 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of things to add: ==<br />
* Traits which allow you to take on new forms arbitrarily, a'la Doppleganger.<br />
* Traits which make you Large or Tiny.<br />
* Traits which grant significant climbing speeds, or the ability to walk on ceilings.<br />
<br />
== Scripted Disclaimers ==<br />
<br />
I have now updated the scripted disclaimers such that they can be used on their own, rather than having to nest them, as per GD's observation of usability. If anyone sees a disclaimer which uses the nested method, please correct it. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 22:19, 14 September 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Aesthetics ==<br />
<br />
Do you mind if I take a crack at updating this to be a bit more aesthetically pleasing? --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 14:16, 3 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please do so. I've been thinking about it myself, but my frustration with the file uploading on this site has grown to the point that I'd rather throw my monitor out a window than add an image to the wiki directly. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 16:07, 3 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How about something like this?<br />
<br />
{| class="messagebox protected collapsible collapsed" align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="background: #fdf9d3; border:1px solid #fdf9d3; padding:0px; text-align: center; width: 100%;"<br />
|+ style="text-align: right;" | ''This content may deviate from {{{1}}} standards.'' [[Image:DesignDisclaimer.png|248px]]<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
{| class="messagebox protected" style="background: #e6d88d; border:2px solid #99B; padding:0px; width: 100%;"<br />
|-<br />
| colspan=2 |<center><big><big>''Caution - Here there be monsters!''</big></big></center><br />
|-<br />
|[[Image:LookClosely.png]] ||<center><big>''This content intends to provide a different experience, or goes beyond the scope of the anticipated subjects and situations, than the {{{1}}} rules were intended to handle. Some portions of the content below may not be what you expect from traditional game content. When implementing this content, DMs and Players should read over all the information carefully, and consider the following specific notes of interest:''</big><br/>{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}}}</center><br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
::I wrapped it into a little badge in the top left corner that can be expanded at will. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 09:03, 4 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: Yes please. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 09:13, 4 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: :) --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 15:49, 4 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::This is real cool. Nice one, Jwguy. I'm edging on the opinion that we should actually have that template just be expanded by default. This could really help make disclaimed articles obvious to the casual user. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:18, 5 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Thanks. Glad you like it.<br />
<br />
:::::Regarding your suggestion, I don't know. I personally like the minimalist style to be the default, because it is less distracting and this way the page looks nice and neat until you make it messy with boxes. ''This content may deviate from # standards'' is the short-form, and you always lead with short-form!<br />
<br />
:::::Aside from that, I think this would be more compatible if we ever decide to go through with adding a Homebrew banner of sorts to pages. If we just add huge boxes after boxes to the page, it'd get cluttered and awful, but a few banners like this in the corner would work, I think.<br />
<br />
:::::That's just me, though. You guys can duke it out if you feel strongly about it. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 14:31, 5 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I like it being collapsible, because it allows the disclaimer to take up less space, while still allowing us to write very long reasons. Also, it puts the collapsed form into the same format as April Fools, and I'm in favor of anything that makes the disclaimers more standardized. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 17:10, 5 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That looks a lot better. I think its good to be "half" hidden so that users see how important it is, and can also show it for more information. Maybe the text could be included below the banner or something, so its more compact, but it looks really good! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Fair 'nuff, it's an underused template as it is, so go wild. As much as I like neat banners, I just think it'll be easy to miss when people are browsing, however, having it functional and desirable to use is more important. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 04:12, 6 October 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Reevaluating the Design Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
With recent discussions over pages such as [[Demon Brawler (3.5e Class)]], [[Elnade (5e Race)]] and [[Arcane Ring (5e Equipment)]], I think it's time to reevaluate the necessity of this template and whether we should be supporting its (mis)use. As-is, it seems to be largely misused, either placed on pages that don't ''need'' it, placed on pages to justify poor mechanics, or placed on pages that should instead link to variant rules. The last one is what makes it pointless: on any page that ''needs'' a design disclaimer, that page needs to link to variant rules or guidelines on how to use that content. The design disclaimer does not ''do'' that. What it ''is'' doing is encouraging poor design, false labeling of pages, and allowing people to think they don't need to link their variant rules. All-in-all, its only valid use case is redundant at best, and I think the template should be deleted.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'd suggest against assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, first; One man's 'justification for poor mechanics' is another's earnest reasoning, after all.<br />
<br />
:Secondly, a top-of-the-page template's purpose is primarily to inform users who are reading the content of the page. In this case, what it is informing users of is an intentional deviation from system standards, so that they can carefully review the material with that in mind, and not go into the subject mistakenly believing that the page conforms to system norms, balance or otherwise.<br />
<br />
:This doesn't always mean the page has a variant rule in place that applies to it, nor is there always a guideline page that deals with the deviation mentioned. There shouldn't be a hard requirement to link to either, either, because it would require even single-page deviations to create whole variant rules or guidelines for content that only exist in a single-page; We'd just be giving a green light to flooding those sections with hundreds of pages that relate to a single or handful of pages, each.<br />
<br />
:Part of the reason this template exists is to protect content that intentionally goes against the traditional standard; A "Needs balance" template is an '''Improvement''' template, as you are clearly already aware, which invites people to correct, modify, and even delete content for being outside these standards. Campaign Setting material, Sourcebooks, and yes, even pages that were created with variant rules in mind have all been slapped with this template once or twice before, and it ends up with individuals attempting to perform these actions (albeit with good intentions) where they are not required or desired. One of the biggest examples is the [[Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)|Races of War]] sourcebook, which has had any number of balance templates thrown at its many pages, despite its noted intentions to work at a different level of balance and giving very detailed reasons and examples as to why and how.<br />
<br />
:This is template is not redundant, as no other template or action fulfills the dual act of protecting pages from edit-warring on deviations and notifying users who are interested in that content of the deviation ahead of time. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::While I'll admit that many of your points are valid, maybe even enough for me to change my mind, I disagree that there shouldn't be a requirement to link to guidelines or variant rules if a page ''requires them'', which is where pages like [[Demon Brawler (3.5e Class)]] fall. It's designed for higher-power play, but all we have is a single class? That's like if the SRD only contained a single psionics class, but no psionics rules, powers or skills. If it requires special consideration to use and you don't tell people how to use it, it doesn't belong on D&D Wiki, because it's only useful to you (or GMs who don't understand or care about balance). Kydo wrote a good article about this [[Help:A_Good_DM|here]].--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 19:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::[[Demon Brawler (3.5e Class)|Demon Brawler]] is something I would consider a good example of a reason not to link to a variant rule; It '''is''' a single page, and is designed for high-power campaigns, per the user. High-power campaigns are something that is not necessarily set to the same definition, person to person. Do you suggest that each user make their own 'High-Power Campaigns' variant rule page to accompany any one page to justify its definition of 'High-Power'? If so, the inevitable end result is that we have several duplicate pages all basically defining similar things, which is just going to be a nightmare.<br />
<br />
:::If the template can be improved, then we should certainly do so, but I don't think that's the way to do it, nor is removing it entirely. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 19:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::The problem is that you're right: high-power campaigns ''are'' something that varies from game to game, but the wiki isn't for storing classes that only you and your players can use, but no one else. There are other website, like Google Drive, can be used for that. If your class requires special consideration in order to not be considered unbalanced, then you must either ''reference some on-site or off-site rules or guidelines'' or ''accept that it will be edited, tagged as unbalanced, or deleted!'' There's a ''reason'' that we have a needs balance template. If people are just allowed to cop-out of balance by saying "oh it's ''supposed'' to be broken" by slapping this template on the page, without any reference for ''why'' it's supposed to be/isn't broken, then we toss out all standards. Your 5e class gives out six feats for free? Design disclaimer! Your 5e race has at-will unlimited-use attacks that do [your level]d8 damage? Design disclaimer!<br />
<br />
::::The [[Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)|Races of War]] sourcebook is a good example of ''how'' to use the design disclaimer, because it actually explains how and why things deviate from the norms, instead of just letting people get away with broken creations.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 20:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::As a side-note, I'd like to note that Kydo's article is irrelevant in this case. It is true that people might use fallacious reasonings when arguing with other users over the balance of content, but that's not what this template is about; This template is about stating that there is purposeful deviation and the user should be aware of that, not arguing that the content is balanced to traditional standards if used by a good DM or player.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::As for the topic, I'd refer to the above, again: This isn't about requesting special consideration, it is about acknowledging that the difference is intentional. I realize the difference may seem miniscule to you, but framing the argument improperly will only serve to mislead it. Secondly, while you might have your own ideals as to what is and is not allowed on the wiki, they don't take precedence over anyone else's; This design disclaimer came about due to collaboration between active users and staff.<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::Don't get me wrong, though; I understand what you're saying, but by the measure of your own words, you're effectively condemning whole campaign settings, and plenty of other homebrew content, which often satisfy the requirement of being created for a DM and his players (often because campaigns adopt different standards, spells, classes, and more purely because they are ''custom campaign settings''), and are deviant in nature, out of what appears to be your personal ideal of what content is allowed on the wiki and what isn't.<br />
<br />
:::::''And that's fine,'' you know, but if that is what we're arguing, and this disclaimer is what is at stake, then, I'm going to argue in defense of the exceptions, because that is what this disclaimer was made for.<br />
<br />
:::::Now, I think improving the template is a well-and-good endeavor, if you think it can reasonably curb items that might be abusing the template's intention, but I don't think linking to variant rules or guidelines for every page is the way to do it, because it will just clutter other sections. Maybe we can achieve that in a different manner? The template already has a '''Specific Details''' variable that is so the user can argue their case for the deviation. Can that perhaps be expanded in a meaningful way? --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 21:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with Demon Brawler is that ''it doesn't explain what the standards are for the "very difficult campaign"'' so we have no idea if it's balanced for even that. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Let's look at [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Design_Disclaimer some of the pages] that use this template.<br />
:::::The first is [[:Spydric-Ones (4e Race)]]. Why does it have it? Because it uses a new language and a new skill from a sourcebook; they are a variant rule. It should simply be "if you're using this sourcebook, you get these. If you're not, use these."<br />
:::::There's a micro-example in the PHB. Feats are an optional mechanic. They "deviate" from the standards of the core game. Pretend the feats section is a sourcebook. The "standard" human works with the core game. The "variant" human explains what changes if you are using feats. <br />
:::::Then there's some that are for "Races of War". What is the perceived issue.. that they are overpowered? Let's say I'm designing a class for this sourcebook. Can you point me to the section in the sourcebook that describes the new standards? What is it about a [[Barbarian, Tome (3.5e Class)]] that's not suitable for a standard game? It's been a long time since I've played 3.5e, but I would say it's the Fast Healing: so is there a way to tell if that is balanced for Races of War? Sorry for the questions, but this is preamble for my examining this template. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::In regards to your examples, I have nothing significant to do with the Spydric-Ones, so I cannot offer you insight into why someone used the template. I can make guesses that they wanted to use the template to disclaim that they were using the variant rule, and the template is a visually appealing way to do so, and serves a purpose that is similar and perhaps overlapping. Perhaps the appealing part is my own ego, however?<br />
<br />
:::::::As for the Tome Barbarian, it has the disclaimer because:<br />
:::::::*It uses a non-standard base attack bonus progression, detailed in [[Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)]]<br />
:::::::*It has access to features that are typically stronger than most other SRD base classes, and even some OGL classes, and especially when compared to the [[SRD:Barbarian|SRD Barbarian]]. Comparing material to the original SRD material is the chief way of determining traditional balance.<br />
:::::::*Races of War content has been flagged for deletion, suffered edit wars over balance, and various other edits on the basis that the various pages are overpowered, some even by yourself, [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]], despite links back to the source material on the wiki and the arguments for how and why the content was designed this way. A discussion was had on the matter and it was decided to apply the template to all Races of War material.<br />
<br />
:::::::As for making new content for races of war, I'm sure you can make your own classes by examining the classes or the sourcebook and following suit; If you're asking that the author of a sourcebook provide an entire "make your own" section in their sourcebooks, I'd say that is unnecessary and a bit overbearing. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 21:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think you're somehow misreading me, because what I'm saying is anything that uses this template ''needs'' to have some point of reference outside of it. If you're going to say that your deviation from the norm is intentional, and that's why it's not unbalanced, then you need some way to prove that. I'm sure that ''many'' people who make an unbalanced class did it intentionally. If "my campaigns that ''no one else on the wiki knows anything about, how to run or what other monsters, rules, classes and guidelines we use'' is different from standard D&D, but I'm not going to show anyone how or provide a base reference for the power level" was a valid excuse for making unbalanced content, then we wouldn't have templates for pages that need balance.<br />
<br />
::::::::If you think that this template is necessary, then fine, I'll concede to that. But I think that we need to establish that you can't just use it in a vacuum. You can't just say "this is for an x campaign" and expect to get away with not telling people what x campaign is. Of course, there's exceptions to this, such as if it's homebrew for a non-OGL WotC thing or whatever, but there still needs to be some notice on that page like, "hey, x rule is from y book." The wiki supports citations, so people can use them for this purpose. So I don't care if the variant rules or campaign guidelines or whatever are written in this template, in citations, on the talk page or wherever else, so long as we can agree that anything that intentionally deviates from the norms needs to actually explain ''how'' in terms that will actually help ''other users'' use that stuff.<br />
<br />
::::::::The great thing about the core rules is that they provide a baseline to reference homebrew content against for balance. As Mara said, if it deviates from that, then we still need some other point of reference, else you're making something that no one knows how to properly use. I'm not saying you need a whole "make your own" chapter explaining how to make content for it, but at least do ''something'' other than make one broken class and provide the barest of excuses.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The scenario you've put forward in your post seems to be that you think an entire campaign has to satisfy a number of arbitrary requirements, seemingly including ''Popularity'' of all things (''If "my campaigns that no one else on the wiki knows anything about''), in order to establish that the campaign setting deviates from edition standards. I think that is unfounded, considering that campaign settings, by their very nature, introduce new and differently-balanced content in their settings. You can literally compare Wizard's own published 3.5e campaigns and end up with big differences in standards and you'll not always find a suitable explanation as to why. You would hold our users to a standard that not even Wizard's acknowledges, over ideals, and I don't find that this is a good enough reason to justify it against all the issues it brings, or how it dictates content for users.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Apart from that, my stance on the matter of defending the deviation in the template is thus: I think people should have to defend it in some way, and the degree at which they should is certainly debatable, but I'm not going to be backing any strict implementation that requires an unreasonable and arbitrary amount of data that stifles content. You're asking for whole other pages of content that aren't necessary, in my opinion. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 22:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::::'''''The design disclaimer is not an excuse to make broken content in a vacuum. We have [[Template:needsbalance]] for a reason. It's not about popularity, it's about making it so people besides yourself can use it. If that's too much work, don't put it on the wiki and get upset when people make it usable for other people. RoW is designed in a very intentional way, but two, if not three, of the pages I linked do not. They're only used as a cop-out in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's not what this template is for.'''''--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 22:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::How '''bold''' of you. They were your words, not mine, mind you.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::In any case, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, here, anymore. I've already stated why the template exists several times and how it is supposed to be used (as it was laid out in discussions above and elsewhere), and that I think your proposed solution to this supposed problem is unnecessary and overbearing; you've only supplied your personal opinion as a reason for taking some rather authoritarian measures that will end up restricting users and content, as well as introduce more problems that existed before the template was made, and will override prior consensus... frankly, I don't think that's a good reason enough for this. <br />
<br />
:::::::::::If you think someone is using a template incorrectly, then take it to the talk page of the content in question. That's how that situations has ''always'' been handled, and I'd still recommend it. At this point, we have a fundamental disagreement over what you think is required for content using this template, and what you believe the solution should be; '''''Boldly''''' hammering the same points over and over is arguably fun, I suppose, but I guess at this point there's not much more to say. I'm open to other ideas, personally, but I don't think this is the right way to go. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 13:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::On one hand, you tell me that it's just my personal opinion, despite being backed by policies that were in place before this template existed, and that it's not my place to tell people to maintain our standards of quality that have been around for years, but on the other hand, you tell me to take my complaints to the talk page for those pages. That'd be all well and good ''if we could come to a consensus about this.'' What's the point in writing on a talk page that the template needs more explanation, if another mod that suits the author can just come along and tell him that it's ''okay'' to toss out all standards as long as it's ''intentional?''--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::These are all opinions. Consensus and arguments are built of the stuff; I'm not sure what is objectionable in that. The only things I said close to telling you it's ''not your place to tell people to maintain our standards'' were suggestions to not assume bad faith and that your ideas don't necessarily take precedence over others, in response to what seemed like you stating your opinions and asserting them as objective requirements to be met. In the latter case, that is because that would fly in the face of the concept of consensus and proper argument. Wanting to achieve consensus is fine, but I don't think that necessarily entails agreeing with your proposed solution.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Just as an aside, I think that's quite a leap to what you came away with. I'd like to take a moment to say that we shouldn't make this some kind of personal feud. Nothing in this should be taken personally, and there's no need to make this anything more than a disagreement.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I was going to go on, but at the end of the day, we've kind of arrived at a disagreement over the solution, and our argument is starting to re-synchronize with the one below, so I think it'd be better to just consolidate it down there. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 18:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Sorry this was in response to Jwguy way up there, so I'm unindenting.<br />
:If I remember right, I eventually added the Supplement category to the RoW classes so that they would be be accessible from the sourcebook, but not from the general lists (as surely they are only of use if you are using the sourcebook).<br />
:Further examples in the list are Large creatures (e.g. [[Hill Giant (4e Race)]]) or creatures that fly in 4e or 5e. My argument here is that we should (and we do) provide guidelines for how to incorporate large and flying creatures in a game, and link to them. These are not really deviations of standards, we just need to let the player and DM know what to expect, and what the balance considerations are.<br />
:[[Terragnaw (3.5e Creature)]] looks ridiculous, but it's valid under the sourcebook used. It doesn't "deviate", you just need that sourcebook to use it (not that you could ''use'' the terragnaw, but you know what I mean]]. <br />
:With [[Kamui (4e Race)]], the design disclaimer is being used to because there is some ''incomplete'' design.<br />
:The template has been added to [[Space Pirate (5e Race)]] and [[Alien Grey (5e Race)]] because they are "futuristic". This is a campaign consideration, not a design consideration.<br />
:The pattern here is that the template is, as far as I can tell, only justifiable when the page is part of a sourcebook, in which case shouldn't we have a "This page is used with this sourcebook" header? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 21:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Another example, [[King's Ranger (5e Background)]]. I know GD added it, but what does that Disclaimer message even ''mean''? A lot of these disclaimer messages are either absent or unhelpful, and it doesn't help that they're hidden. Just some straight forward lead text that says "I'm doing this this way, because X." would be far more helpful. Because maybe that editor's wrong and there's a better way of doing it. The Disclaimer banner sometimes feels like a stamp that says "You can't change this now because reasons." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 22:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I think this is misdirected, then. You seem to be taking issue with how individuals are using the template (i.e. not providing information on the deviation or why it deviates, using the template on campaign pages that don't necessarily need it, using it on pages that don't deviate), and using that to say that the template itself is unjustified.<br />
<br />
::As stated before, I'm not going to be able to tell you what every other user is thinking. When we started working on the disclaimer, at least when I came in, the general consensus on what the disclaimer was supposed to be was a template that acknowledged the page deviated from system standards and should have details on how, and preferably why. It is meant to protect pages that intentionally deviate from system standards while acknowledging this and requesting the users carefully consider the page on the basis of those deviations (usually specified in the "Specific Details" parameters).<br />
<br />
::I've said this before, up there, so I'm not sure if you're meaning to ask something else, or not. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 22:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I think there are rare, specific circumstances where [[Template:Design Disclaimer]] could be applicable, but as [[Template_talk:Design_Disclaimer#Use|Marasmusine outlined when it was implemented]], there are a lot more situations where people would (and do) apply this template to justify articles that are actually just unsuitable, for any of a variety of reasons. Examples have already been pointed out.<br />
:::So while I would agree this template has a use in theory, it does seem to invite a lot of misuse. Users are under the impression that a 'Design Disclaimer' allows you to make whatever you like. Which, to be fair, is kind of what the template implies. The last thing we need is to let users think they can post any broken items under the guise of being simply unconventionally designed. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::His examples are well and good, and I've had no problem with the complaints levied, except with perhaps disagreeing on the idea that "High-Powered Campaign" needs, what I would consider, a silly level of qualification. I've put my own up as well, but I think it better to get to the crux of the issue:<br />
<br />
::::It's a nature of the beast scenario; the template is designed to allow intentional deviations without using an improvement template. If, like Marasmusine mentioned above, people are providing insufficient reasons for that deviation, or are not otherwise using the template correctly, I'd say that is a problem of education that should be solved either on the individual talk pages or by clarifying the manner of use in which the template is prescribed. That's why we have a moderation team in the first place, honestly.<br />
<br />
::::If, however, what we're having here is a matter of conscience, and what is being suggested is that we simply don't allow any deviant content on the wiki outside of a handful of variant rules that can't necessarily apply to any or all scenarios in which content might be applied, then I'd say I'm on the other side of the argument. I think that's a bit too restrictive and will end up being ultimately more harmful to the site than it will help. You might not know this, but at one point, there were balance and deletion templates across a large and greater portion of the [[Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)|RoW]] content, despite fulfilling what seems to be all the proposed solutions that were made above, as well as the questions asked here. Those didn't stop popping up until we got a template on them, and personally, I think it is the perfect template to represent what content like RoW is trying to achieve.<br />
<br />
::::Personally, I think the ideal use of the template is for a user to use the Specific Details to note how the content deviates and why, and provided the reasoning is relatively coherent, I think we should allow the content with the disclaimer. At the end of the day, WOTC does a terrible job of balancing their own content, especially when you go back to earlier editions... a person who submits content for the sake of, I don't know, bringing a class into the same power level as another SRD, or even an OGL class, should be fine, especially when the class archetype was originally pitifully unbalanced, as is (SRD Paladins, anyone?). Similarly, if a class is designed for a higher-power campaign, then I think as long as we're notifying people that the class is designed to be stronger than what you might expect, that we're doing our duty properly. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::My problem with that is that it goes against everything the wiki has been trying to maintain for years. Suddenly, all our talk of making balanced content is moot because ''anyone'' can say that their content, no matter how overpowered or how many nonexistent mechanics it uses, can claim it's intentional, and personally, I don't feel comfortable getting into an admin civil war over this template, so I'm hoping we can compromise on the template without compromising on our standards of quality. I think the specific details variable needs to be mandatory, at the least. And if we ''did'' allow over-powered content (and I hope we regulate that), I think we'd need to separate it from the DPLs of normal content.<br />
<br />
:::::Despite what you seem to believe, I'm not trying to argue that every page with this template have a 32 page in-depth guide on how to use it in a campaign. I just think that we, as what you called a "moderation team" need to agree on what constitutes fair use of this template, and what does not. Because the way forward is ''not'', and this has been established countless times before by precedent and policy, to allow people to throw all their garbage on this wiki and expect to get away with it because they ''acknowledged'' that it's broken. I honestly don't know how else to get that across, so I'll just wait until GD has a chance to respond on this matter.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::It isn't like I don't acknowledge the concern; I get it, you know. I realize very well that something that give six feats per level isn't balanced, at all, and that ideally, this template shouldn't defend that.<br />
<br />
::::::My stake in this is that we've got plenty of perfectly good content that deviates, and good reasons for these deviations; We've reached similar decisions for campaign content that has deviated on system standards, on balance or otherwise, and it would also apply to user creations of yesteryear that probably could have benefited from the template (like Marasmusine's Sentient Machine experiment, which at one point produced a hybrid race/class outside of SRD 5e Guidelines but by his own assertion was perfectly balanced) - not all of it bears the template, simply because it came after these incidences occurred. I believe a policy and template should be maintained to protect that content from improvement templates that assert that the content itself has to be changed (under threat of deletion). I don't see anything inherently wrong with having content outside of system standards that is well-maintained, and at least puts forward a coherent reasoning towards its deviation, and a disclaimer is provided for readers of the content. If it is asserted that this goes against how it has been for many years, then I say that's just an appeal to tradition, and that policy can and clearly does change.<br />
<br />
::::::As for compromise, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to determine fair use of the template, and while I personally think it is unnecessary, if we must separate this content from other homebrew via DPL similar to [[3.5e Flaws|what I did here]], you'll find that I have no objection to that.<br />
<br />
::::::The specific details variable being mandatory we can agree on, entirely, I think. [Help:Precedent] outlines good information to be listed in specific details, although I think the bulleted items should be taken more as examples than as a strict list of requirements, for reasons I'll bring up on that talk page. Not having the details variable filled out causes this template to fail in what it sets out to do, in the first place, which is to primarily acknowledge and explain. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 18:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wow. Sorry I missed this! I think it's time we sat down and read what the disclaimer itself proposes to do.<br />
:''"This template is used to give contextual explanation for content which may be '''contentious or difficult to visualize''', in the interest of '''preventing edit/flame wars''' on the wiki and debates at the table. '''This template is not justification for broken, unfinished, unbalanced, or incomprehensible design, (see Precedent (DnD Guideline)) nor is this template intended to identify pages as being incomplete or broken (see Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates).''' It is designed to communicate an unusual fringe-case piece of homebrew which is conditionally problematic. For example, flight is often cited as being fundamentally unbalanced for PCs by many DMs, however there are many designers and DMs who have absolutely no problem with flight whatsoever, as they design their adventures to challenge their PCs' specific abilities. The result is a never-ending flame-war and debate between hobbyists about a point that is moot: '''It depends on the DM and the game, and has very little to do with rules balance.''' There are no good arguments for either side, because evidence is that both sides are true! This template communicates that a piece of homebrew either is, or contains, such a fringe-case, and requires special consideration. In other words, this template is used to shut down grey-area debates regarding the word "balance" without being forced to give certain pages permanent imbalance templates demanding correction, or allowing questionable balance pages to go unmarked. It is our acknowledgement that the word "balance" is fundamentally subjective."''<br />
Given the template's stated purpose, it is clearly being misused. Pages which are misusing the template should be corrected. GamerAim is correct in identifying widespread misuse of this template. I disagree with Marasmusine's assessment. Maras, there are people out there who would happily bot-delete the word "flight" from every page on the wiki, no matter how good of an explanation we provided on how to make use of it in a game. There are just some aspects of the balance debate in the broader community which do not have a black or white resolution. This template should not be used as much as it is. It's for fringe cases where, simply put, there is no right answer. The idea is to recognize that there are some places where no guideline or policy will ever be satisfactory, given the current state of precedent for a game and its community. Also, as the balance debate evolves over time, it is possible that widespread disagreement over an issue may shift, reducing its contentiousness, and thus invalidating the use of this template. Basically, it isn't about rules, it's about what hobbyists think of the rules. It is likely that some of those pages had this template before I rather boldly (and rudely) converted it to its current state. I recognize that I was foolish in that regard. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 21:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is on non-medieval pages because there is a portion of the community who believe D&D is medieval exclusive and take that as a basis of balance, because they aren't defining balance by the sane standards as us. It is on Races of War because everything touched by Frank and K is inherently incendiary to anyone who holds "canon" to be the absolute ideal of balance- and nothing can convince them otherwise. There are real problematic factions among the hobby community who are the root cause of many complications on D&D web-communities. There needs to be something to address that fact and protect creatives from what are, essentially, rules bullies who take advantage of strict balance rules to crush anything they personally dislike. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A great example: remember back when we had an aggressive user who made a race with machineguns for heads? The impetus for that was my Rubber Forehead Alien page, which was a race at the time. He asked me if he could use those rules to make a race of people who have machine guns for heads. I thought he was joking, but answered honestly: "Yeah, if your DM is ok with using these rules and accepts your design." He took that as meaning "you can use these rules to make any ridiculous thing you can imagine on this wiki." He then made that race, did not link to the rules he was supposedly using to design it, and also didn't even follow those rules in the first place. He was criticized for it, which he did not handle well at all. I think the page was deleted? I'm not sure. I'm on my phone and digging around the wiki to make links for this while I write is impractical. He tried to use the design disclaimer to justify his design, but didn't satisfy its requirements. Had he linked back to Rubber Forehead Aliens as the base rule system it was derived from, and actually followed those rules, I wouldn't have had any problem with it, and I suspect neither would anyone else. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 22:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ah here we go. You can see my exchange with Kanye on the talk page here: [[Talk:Rubber Forehead Alien (5e Variant Rule)]]. And here's the talk page for Lead Face, which actually hasn't been deleted! [[Talk:Lead Face (5e Race)]] If you go to the article itself, you will see that it is still misusing the template. I've let it slide because of the April fools template. It really is funny. But it should be noted that Kanye didn't want it to be a joke race. In a way, that is kind of bullying from the community toward him. He doesn't frequent the wiki anymore. ''Gee, I wonder why.'' I'm not going to pretend like my excrement don't stink, I treated him wrong because of an inaccurate first impression. But I'm not happy with what happened there. This template still plays a role in what is wrong with that page. If you want justification to discuss real change of this template, there you have it. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 22:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I recommend that we either make the requirements for using this template purposeful, per above, or we go the more drastic route and make pages with a Design Disclaimer included on seperate lists. This would be like the April Fools pages on [[5e Races]]. How, exactly do we propose that we make the requirements for using this template steeper? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The problem is that we, as a moderation team, can't let users run around deciding what templates are and are not appropriate. They can have a say and influence decisions, and sometimes we might have to concede to those even if we disagree. And that's fine, because it's a ''collaborative wiki!'' That's the reason attribution can't be plastered on an article, and that's the reason an OP isn't the sole judge of balance and whether something deserve an AFD template. Some people just don't understand the AFD template, or think that just because ''they'' run silly games (which is fine, BTW; I always include silliness in my games), that it normalizes the silliness to everyone else. But we ''have'' to take into account the entire community when deciding if it deserves that template, because if most people don't think Lead Face is serious, then we can't treat it like it is. But since most people take magic seriously, we don't have to slap it on every magic-using class. Maybe it's unfair to some, but we have to look out for the whole community, not just one OP (who isn't even being hurt by that).<br />
<br />
::And the same goes for the design disclaimer and everything that comes with ''that.'' As a community effort, the things people upload have to be usable by other people. They just ''do'' or else there's no point in uploading them. As I've said before, that might mean using citations or linking to a homebrew rule or the SRD or an external site or '''whatever''' as long as it's made usable! That Demon Brawler class is kind of iffy, but in the OP's defense, he ''did'' give some guidelines on the talk page when told that he needed to give some explanation, and that was good! He explained how his normally-overpowered class could be challenged, so people who go there can see it and GMs can know how to work the class in a game. And we ''have'' to hold people to this kind of standard or else they (as they already have) use the template as an excuse to upload broken content and complain about it being edited. It ''legitimizes'' people who make things intentionally broken, by saying that their intent to make it broken makes it okay, since it wasn't just some ''accident'' that they have no understanding of rules or balance.<br />
<br />
::Even if we agree that even pages with this template have to be held to a standard, I think that we should separate pages with it from other things. Maybe include AFD and DD in a "non-standard game material" DPL on the relevant pages? People who like their strict balance medieval fantasy D&D can get it, and people looking for something different can find what ''they'' want easier too. Sounds like a win-win to me :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
:::This topic shifts too much.<br />
<br />
:::This argument originated as a call to remove the template, I would like to state, and now seems to have progressed through "What is the template for?" and now seems to be changing, again and again. Part of what needs to be addressed, I think, is what actually ''works'' as a justification for the template. As mentioned on [[Help Talk:Precendent]], the bulleted points on the page are examples, but a the same time, I think some of us are expecting them to be a strict list of requirements for all pages using the template.<br />
<br />
:::After the initial argument for removal stopped, both [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] and [[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] both seemed to expressed concern over what exactly is supposed to be in the '''Specific Details''' field, and what should actually be considered sufficient justification for the template. We're going to hit subjective crags no matter what we do here, I realize, but I think what is being asked is "What is the minimum we accept to justify this template on any given page?"<br />
<br />
:::Does it have to have a separate variant rules page and link to it, or does a relatively detailed explanation suffice? Does it require an in-depth [[The Same Game Test (DnD Guideline)|Same Game Test]] posted on the talk page, and if so, to what degree of detail, or can they perform the test and inform of the results they've achieved?<br />
<br />
:::It might be that the template or the [[Help:Precedent]] page explains all of this already, and maybe I'm the one getting this wrong, but that seems to be a question that is coming up. Saying it just needs to be ''justified'' is fine with me, but it is the fact that ''justified'', itself, is open to interpretation that seems to be confusing?<br />
<br />
:::Also, I'd like to take a moment to say that I think that argument is a bit hyperbolic, [[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]]. ''No-one'' is being hurt by having more content and making sure that the content has disclaimers if it deviates; Not the OP, and not the community as a whole. In fact, I'd say it can only be more beneficial to have more choices and options, on the whole. The only way that this could possibly be a bad thing is if people were misled to believe the content was ''balanced'', which has been a complaint in the past. The disclaimer performs the function of preventing that. There's no legitimizing deliberately bad content when the pages in question have literally used the template wrong and everyone has agreed on that; at worst, it just means we need to get the above items figured out or at least get a better general idea on the matter.<br />
<br />
:::As far as the DPL separation goes, I don't see as necessary, again, because the disclaimer is there and it performs the function of alerting and informing the user appropriately, and not every class with a design disclaimer is necessarily ''unbalanced''. That said, if this is the one thing we absolutely can't have for some reason, I'm willing to concede it just to achieve a compromise. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I apologize for the topic changing so much, and maybe that's caused some confusion, but I think it's because we're just working through ''what'' is wrong with this template or certain implementations, is all. I accept that what works for one page might not work for others. That's okay - as you said, options are good. I don't have a problem with having more options, if that's what you think - the reason I suggested separating DPLs is because I thought it might help people find options that best suit them (though I acknowledge that there's a huge gulf between joke pages and design deviant pages). I sort of went on a tangent about the AFD template, but I was trying to make a point about how user interpretations can vary. So, to say it again, I think that having more options is ''good'' as long as the pages are helpful to other users :)<br />
<br />
::::Lots of things here are going to be open to interpretation. Is page X too inappropriate? Are sexually explicit images that different from basic nudity? Some people will have one answer and some another. I ''do'' feel that we've made some progress on how we ''collectively'' interpret this template, which I feel will allow us, as a moderation team, to better interpret the pages that use it :) That was really the whole point here - I wanted us all to be on the same page, and I think we're almost there.<br />
<br />
::::I think the main thing here is that we have, I think, established that this template can't be used as a cop-out for bad design, which is what I thought you were advocating. Now that we agree that it ''isn't'' (I think), there's not much we can do aside from decide on the DPL separation. Bad design is going to be something that's subjective, but since I think we've all agreed that bad design isn't something we want, we can approach things on a case-by-case basis. I'm sorry if I maybe blew this out of proportions, but I simple didn't want us to agree on an issue that I felt was important - to say the least, I didn't want any fundamental conflicts. So, I'm sorry it took so long to reach this point, but I'm glad that we did :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::I am currently reviewing all uses of this template. Where the page is associated with a guideline, variant rule, or sourcebook, I am trying a simple messagebox with a link. It's immediate and clear and doesn't take up much room. For example, [[Flying Dragonborn (5e Race Variant)]]. Flight in 5e is not a "deviation from standards": A fly speed is part of the core mechanics, and an official publication has a PC race with flight: but a [[Flying Races (5e Guideline)|generalized guide]] might help. Prior to this, you had to notice that the disclaimer banner had a "show button" and think to click on it, read past large-font boilerplate text, to get to the reason why its there. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 17:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]], even in 3.5e, there were OGL races with innate fly speeds. I think the point [[User:Kydo|Kydo]] was trying to make is that flying presents a rather large advantage, and yet no-one can clearly tell how or when it is properly balanced (since it is useful in a myriad of situations, it is hard to think of flight as an integer, and therefore balance it as you would with something like ability scores, and so on. While I wouldn't call them factions, it can and sometimes does lead to arguments over whether something is properly balanced when the concept, by its nature, is hard to really balance or tell if it is balanced. I don't know if you remember, but on a handful of 3.5e races, you and I had similar arguments.<br />
<br />
::::::They ended up with me pointing out that, at some point or another, an officially published splatbook somewhere had a race with similar abilities/features. Was the OGL race unbalanced? Honestly, I'd probably not ever allow it in my campaigns because... well, yeah, it was awful. But if our standards of ''balance'' are about comparing the creation to an official counterpart, then... yeah, it is technically ''balanced''. And this is why I keep saying that WOTC is awful at balancing their own content. Maybe they've gotten better as time goes on, but I think it is something to keep in mind when we're working with the template.<br />
<br />
::::::In the case you've provided, I think the template would largely be there to prevent issues with balance concerns because of the ambiguous but massive advantage that is flight. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::"And this is why I keep saying that WOTC is awful at balancing their own content. Maybe they've gotten better as time goes on"<br />
:::::::This is probably off-topic, but in my opinion WoTC has gotten better at balancing their content over time – 5th edition's classes are much closer together in power compared to the atrocity that was 3.5 core, with a few exceptions. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 18:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::And somehow we're back to talking mechanics exclusively again. I'm not sure how I can make this more clear. The DD is an anti-bullying tool designed to mediate the social hazards I have seen on other communities and in real life regarding balance. It's about people, not rules. That's it.<br />
<br />
::::::::If you think a guideline dedicated to explaining flying races is good enough, then I encourage you to go that route. Hell, Marasmusine is putting real work into the issue rather than just flapping his gab, and I appreciate that.<br />
<br />
::::::::However, have you ever spent any time over at the Gamers Den? Have you ever chatted with Frank Trollman? Have you seen friends get into fist fights because ''"fucking water breathing is fresh water exclusive!!!"'' The concept of balance is nebulous. That is ok. It's a good thing actually, because it means more variety of content and more styles of play. But some people have a very strict definition of balance and get really bent out of shape over it. They will straight-up verbally abuse people who disagree. You might not want to call it factioning, but I've seen enough of it to say with certainty that this hobby is thoroughly divided into distinct camps regarding the issue of balance, and these camps are often made incompatible by their vocal jerk members. I do not appreciate that. Most people are cool. They shouldn't feel obligated to fit one smartmouth's idea of balance. Frank isn't a nice guy, but he is right that the classes in 3.5e are mathematically unequal in combat. The people who attack him for that disagree because they don't even define balance in the same terms.<br />
<br />
::::::::For practical reasons of compatibility, this wiki endorses similarity to precedent as a basis for "balance". But that's just practicality. (And, I would like to add, it was something I just decided to write on a whim one afternoon. It has received little to no criticism or endorsement since.) I think it is inappropriate to exclude the other camps, or make it harder for them to operate here. They are part of the hobby. They deserve to be able to enjoy this community too. They should be allowed to share what they enjoy, even if it isn't as compatible with core as we'd normally want. So we have this template. The idea is that wherever people have drawn a line in the sand, this can be used to bridge that divide. To say, "look, there are other paradigms of what matters mechanically, and this is where this guy is coming from."<br />
<br />
::::::::You already can search for DD pages exclusively if you want, same with AFDs. They have their own categories. As such, separating them in the DPLs just seems like we're distancing "normal" content from "abnormal" content. Humans are inherently tribal, and a divide of that nature always has negative connotations. It would subtly imply "your fun is weird to us". Also, it'd be a buttload of work to implement on top of being an unwise course of action.<br />
<br />
::::::::Marasmusine is right though. The boilerplate text is too large and unwieldy. It has annoyed me in the past. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 20:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I can see that none of us are going to agree on this, so I'll just wait for it to come up again in context and see what happens. However, GD already decided that AFD pages should be separated, so that's where we are.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 21:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::I think that '''''instead of flapping his gab''''' comment was out of line. I don't see what's wrong with discussing or commenting on something when someone brings up their concerns, even if '''you''' think they're invalid by default. The whole reason we're all even here is because it became a big enough issue for someone to raise concerns over, and you're basically calling people out for talking it out to make sure we have a better and more unified understanding of it.<br />
<br />
:::::::::On topic, I didn't contest anything about what you said, I am just not calling it 'factions' because that implies we actually have organized groups of people who share a specific core belief and act on it, together. At best, we have a bunch of individuals who might happen to agree on any particular matter for sometimes different, sometimes similar reasons. The rest of this seems to be you replying to [[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]], though, so I'm going to let you guys have at that.<br />
<br />
:::::::::Man, all of this for trying to stick up for the little guys. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 21:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Like all the improving, reviewing, and removing templates requiring a solid reason for the DD template makes the most sense. This would move this template away from the camp of just doing it because, to a camp based off logic. I agree that we need to condense the introduction text, and then list a valid reason for this template's usage. It seems that spliting DPL lists further would just be confusing, but we can discuss this route more too. Can someone condense the wording and propose a logical usage for this template per balance issue? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 21:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In terms of a way forward for this template, I agree with GD above. What I'm getting from this conversation though is that we at some point need to establish where, in terms of balance, we draw the line as acceptable content on this wiki; I'm getting the impression that we all have varying ideas on where that line begins and ends. This is an issue that seems to be getting very mixed up with talk about the template itself, and consequently leading to rather frustrating discussion. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I think that's fine, as mentioned. I suppose we need to designate a control, then? I wanna' repeat some questions from above:<br />
<br />
::{{quote|Does it have to have a separate variant rules page and link to it, or does a relatively detailed explanation suffice? Does it require an in-depth [[The Same Game Test (DnD Guideline)|Same Game Test]] posted on the talk page, and if so, to what degree of detail, or can they perform the test and inform of the results they've achieved?}}<br />
<br />
::So, personally, I'm going to err on the side of the user; I think a sufficient explanation, one that '''1)''' identifies the deviant design decisions (any potentially questionable features or qualities, compared against the closest possible SRD or OGL counterpart, and in what way it deviates, for example), '''2)''' Provides an explanation that details the reasoning that can, at the very least, inform why this change exists (''Because it is rebalanced to meet another SRD/OGL class in power'', or ''it uses rules detailed at -Link-'', or ''That one class in Races of Stone gets fly and +2Dex +2Con and +2Str at the cost of having no arms, so this should also be relatively similar''), and '''3)''' Requests that any concerns be taken to the talk page.<br />
<br />
::Personally, I think something like that is the bare minimum. It identifies the deviant features, as a disclaimer should, gives a proper argument, and leaves it open to discussion, which should hopefully seem less of a ''No-one can challenge me on this'' type of thing. I think people who are trying to pass overpowered silly things off will have a harder time with something like that, because they have to designate the closest counterpart in SRD/OGL, and defend it properly. ''"I wanted a stronger item"'' should never be a suitable defense on its own. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 04:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm also not sure why anyone would think the template would prevent anyone from just changing stuff anyways. This is a wiki, and nothing about the template invalidates the disclaimer at the bottom of the editor. It's just a communication tool. Anyone who reads it and ignores it is just being uncivil. That's what really matters to me more than people arguing over it. I'm fine with it being vague, as long as the result is civil conversation about design philosophy. I support that no matter what. (Having a conversation about what a "High power campaign" is to the contributor and how that justifies their design is a worthwhile result generated by the template, in my mind.) But if someone just decides to delete the disclaimer and remodel a page to suit their idea of balance without comment, that starts to set an antisocial tone at least, and could be the beginnings of an incivility warning if they continue such a pattern. Even if someone does read the DD, there's nothing stopping them from disagreeing with the execution and editing a page to better suit the deviated standard! So, to say "but I put a disclaimer" is not only a misunderstanding of the template, but kind of a misunderstanding of the wiki. Going forward though, you guys are right, this needs to be more clear. The ambiguity is leaving room for problematic and conflicting interpretations. I already made the changes I believe are necessary. Are there any specific changes anyone else would like to see? We could, of course, just boldly edit this thing together until we reach some sort of technical compromise between our disparate visions. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 05:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Display change ==<br />
<br />
I do think this template should make it more clear to people that content may be ''game-breakingly'' different, because at the moment it could easily be construed as "this content is slightly weird.", rather than "this content may change how half the game works".<br />
<br />
I personally think this template should just be expanded by default - The template, and extra text especially, can be super duper important to understanding the content. Much as I think the contracted banner icon is sups pretty, would there be any real objection to this? If so, I'll at least propose a few text changes in stead. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 08:26, 24 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree the template should be revised. I'm just not really sure how, so I would look forward to any change you propose. - [[User:Guy|Guy]] ([[User talk:Guy|talk]]) 09:47, 24 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think the template page does a well enough job explaining the templates purpose. In cases where the DD isn't placed appropriately, the [[Template:Design Disclaimer|template page]] should be referenced to the user. <br><br />
::I too enjoy a small and pretty icon but oft times I overlook it. I think the DD would serve better if non-collapsed, to ensure it is noticeable much like other templates are. <br><br />
::An idea too, an area on the page to link community consensus of superb or excellent examples for the appropriate use of the DD. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:15, 25 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::That sounds like a good idea. What if we do not hide the specific details parameter, but hide the other text? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:18, 25 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ah, yep. I think that would definitely be a good approach, GD. I am mucho in favour. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 00:21, 26 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Wow, I came here to praise this change and I see SgtLion was the one who started this discussion? Nice! SgtLion, always a good, reliable admin. Anyhow, I just wanted to express page appreciation for the redesign. Looks snazzy and functional all in one. Gives the articles a nice "intro" quality, like it's about to get freaky and we gotta set the stage.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:57, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Broken Template? ==<br />
Is the template not displaying correctly or is it just me? [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 10:21, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:It seems fine to me. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:25, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::Here are some screenshots of what I'm seeing, and it doesn't look right to me. [[:File:Design Disclaimer 1.png]] [[:File:Design Disclaimer 2.png]] [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::That's intended; if you look at the template's history, the "specific details" section was moved out of the collapsible table to make it more visible. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:53, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
:::EDIT: or if you just look at the discussion above this. 10:54, 23 December 2018 (MST)<br />
::::Oh, I see. Silly me. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 10:56, 23 December 2018 (MST)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Max7238&diff=1181428User talk:Max72382019-06-05T13:53:32Z<p>GamerAim: /* Adminship */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Welcome to D&D Wiki! == <br />
<br />
;Welcome!<br />
Hello Max7238, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your [[Special:Preferences|user preferences]] match your preferences.<br />
;Questions:<br />
If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's [[Help:Talk Pages|talk page]]. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on [[DnD Discussion]]s. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked [[User talk:Admin|here]]. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.<br />
;Formatting<br />
Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Help:Editing] on Wikipedia (or even their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Introduction] page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. [[Help:Portal]] also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.<br />
;Community<br />
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of [[Help:Behavioral Policy|policies]] are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette] when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|removal process]]. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. [[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:23, 22 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Deletion ==<br />
<br />
You do not need to "Support" a deletion. If there is no opposition an admin will review it and delete it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
: Certainly doesn't look that way with how every admin I've seen barring Geodude is acting. He's the only one not acting smug or looking down on / treating other users like peons, having rational discussion, on and off the wiki. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warning ==<br />
<br />
I am warning you for your [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk%3ADeletion_Policy&type=revision&diff=1180640&oldid=1180638 edit] for ill-considered accusations of impropriety, taunting or baiting, and quoting another editor out of context. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
: I'm sorry that's how you interpret that, but I'll say again that such is not my intention. I'm not sure where or which quote of whom was out of context, either. It's difficult to give anything I'm saying or doing proper consideration given that I'm angry over this matter beyond time, as works published and rights established can, and often do, outlive their creators. I've said at the top of my own user page that I'm used to being misunderstood over text, but since it's the only avenue afforded to me, it's the only choice I have. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:46, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: I disagree that this warning is valid. It possibly could have been a bit nicer, but there is reasonable evidence that ''some'' users are not acting in good faith, and we shouldn’t punish users for trying to make their voices heard when they believe a user is acting improperly, regardless of that user’s status in the community. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 13:02, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It's great to hear that you agree there is room to improve in the discussions.<br />
::Here are some quotes:<br />
::(1) ''"I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality.''"<br />
::(2) ''"Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat maybe twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::''You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to.''"<br />
::(3) ''"You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website.""''<br />
::Respectively in the order of the warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:16, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Okay, I think I understand your reasoning a bit better. Am I correct when I say that you take issue more with the specific way Max chose to word the above quotes, and not the actual idea that was communicated? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 13:26, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::While I appreciate the sentiment, Geodude, please don't put yourself under unnecessary risk on my behalf. It's all a matter of perspective. For the first, I stand by what I said, and there's plenty of evidence to support it. Again, unfortunately for me, a lot of it is in the Discord where I can't reach it and it apparently doesn't count. For the second, maybe I misinterpreted what you meant, but you weren't exactly clear on your intended meaning if that's what happened. I, again, stand by that my perspective is of being treated like what I say or think doesn't matter, and that it doesn't mean anything to you if I have valid points or not. That's how it looks to me, honestly. If that isn't the case, I would only be too glad to hear it, as it seems we're both not very good with text conversation if that's the case. The third is made out of anger, and I will apologize for it, but I'm not removing it or changing it. Context is important, and if I look like an idiot by my own hand, it's important that other people see that too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adminship ==<br />
<br />
How would you feel about being nominated by me for adminship on D&D Wiki?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:06, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
: Surprised, concerned, worried, terrified; in that order. I'm surely not well liked around here for one thing. For another, as Green Dragon himself stated, I don't have many edits or experience on the wiki. And third, even if I wanted to and might be good at it, my every intention is to return to lurking once this deletion policy talk is over. I doubt I'd be active enough or liked enough to warrant such a position, but I would accept the responsibility if it was given to me.--[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 18:10, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That's all fair and I respect it. I hope life returns to chill when this is all over 8) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:53, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerAim&diff=1181427User talk:GamerAim2019-06-05T13:53:06Z<p>GamerAim: /* Quick Note */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 50)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==???==<br />
<br />
Why did you delete your talk page? --Redrum 14:29, 29 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I also don't expect myself to spend the time to correct your mistake "just you like it", if that's what you mean with your edit summary. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:49, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand this comment, GD. I took GA's comment of "thanks for nothing" to be indicative of his frustration toward the wiki in general, and not referring specifically to your undeleting of this talk page. And I do think you should have blanked this page after restoring it; it takes literally two seconds to press Ctrl+A &rarr; Backspace. Though I'm not sure why GA deleted his talk page instead of blanking it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:31, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I deleted it because I thought I could, as it's my own talk page. There was no malice behind it; it quite literally has my name on it, so I assumed it was fine. I don't remember why I wanted to delete it, TBH. I also don't really care if it's deleted, which is why I acknowledged that maybe it'll be restored and that's fine; I just wanted it to be blanked if anyone wanted to go through the trouble of going against my wish to have my talk page deleted. Like Geodude said, it'd have been quick to do since you already spent the time to correct my "mistake."<br />
::Again, no malice. Sorry if I offended, GD. Like Geodude said, I'm overall deflated these days and that edit summary could have been directed towards anyone, even myself.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm still confused as to why you suddenly got very cynical... did something happen between you and GD? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::It was a whole ''THING''. There are a few different pages you should read if you want to catch up on the wikidrama; off the top of my head some important ones are [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/GamerAim (2)|GamerAim's RfA]], [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server|the discussion surrounding GamerAim's Discord server]], [[User talk:Jwguy#Resignation|Jwguy's resignation as admin]], [[Help talk:Warning Policy#GamerAim|the discussion around GamerAim's warning]], and [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SgtLion (2)|SgtLion's RfA]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 17:56, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okey dokey... so is GamerAim still an admin or what? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::GamerAim is still an admin, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:26, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I must ask that you don't answer questions for me on my talk page, Geodude671. It was directed exclusively at me and ''my'' relationship with GD.<br />
:::::::But yes, there was drama over me disagreeing with how Green Dragon chose to run D&D Wiki and how he chose to let others run it as well. Jwguy's resignation isn't relevant, and there was also some stuff involving ConcealedLight's warnings, multiple discussions about Discord (they should be on that same page as the one linked) and probably more. However, I won't link them because at this point I don't care; GD made his decisions, and as much as it may hurt me, I accept that he and I have differing opinions on what D&D Wiki should be.<br />
:::::::I intend to be the last remaining D&D Wiki admin when Geodude671, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan and Quincy are gone. Though honestly, I doubt I'll outlive Geodude; whatever our relationship, I have to admit he's a persistent little bugger ;) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:17, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::"''Challenge Accepted!'' ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::@Cosmos, if you do read those pages, take them with a grain of salt. They are nothing but a blip of the things that occurred in the last 2 years and don't even begin to reveal the tip of an iceberg. GamerAim's reply is most appropriate for the matter and I hope you can focus on that versus anything else. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I hope this doesn't turn into Manga-style fights! --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:01, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Tsunami Bomb==<br />
<br />
How much "Force" will it take to start a tsunami by a man-made Device? --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 9 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, I'm not a meteorologist. The "butterfly effect" posits that even a small amount of force could create a hurricane. A tsunami could probably be created with a couple megaton bomb.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why would anyone (outside of a villain) want to create a GIANT tidalwave? --Redrum 18:02, 16 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Megatons is bigger than what I had in mind. I was hoping to create something that would take out a couple of coastal goblin "villages"!!!--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:24, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==5e Wedding Crasher==<br />
<br />
My main 5e character has been hired to disrupt a wedding. I have access to a trick box that causes 1d4 fire damage when opened and some itching powder. I may want suggestions for other items (and/or spells). --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 13:05, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==experiment 78==<br />
<br />
Has anyone thought of a mind switching carpet?--Redrum 13:56, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure I understand what kind of item you are talking about... I see it is a carpet, but what is the "mind-switching" part? Not sure what that is supposed to do. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:57, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I think he means when 2 people stand on it (and maybe move around the right way) their minds (and/or souls) switch bodies. --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:49, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Crystal Seer==<br />
<br />
There is nothing that says a crystal ball can't be in the shape of a crystal skull, right?--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right...? Also, I keep seeing you comment on this Talk page, you do know that 1. You can make an account (which I suggest, seeing how often you get on here) and 2. GamerAim isn't exactly quite as active anymore (from what I've seen anyways) and so you might get admin responses faster on the Talk pages of other admins such as Green Dragon, Geodude, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy, or Masmurine. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::63.142.81.74, There is nothing that says crystal balls can't be in the shape of crystal skulls. My question to you is why do you ask? --Redrum 14:51, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Fancy ==<br />
<br />
Hey dude/dudette! You'd shown your "face" a bit and now you been MIA awhile. I hope your kicking some school but and things are good. Cheers GA! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. I'm not happy to see that the background (and indeed, the whole theme) has changed to something...well...not as aesthetically-pleasing. But I'm fine, otherwise.<br />
<br />
:<s>Seriously, the site looks amateurish now. What's up with that? I guess it's a good visual representation of everything I did to improve our reputation going down the drain...</s>--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::the conversation died. I think summer time has made lives busy (?) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 19:25, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quick Note ==<br />
<br />
Turns out, I ''can'' in fact be reasonable and polite when I'm treated with the same respect! As Green Dragon says, I'm not experienced with the atmosphere here on the wiki, or with how things are done here. I'm just far too invested, as usual, and I'm trying to do what I think is right, regardless of what I'm being told to say or do. It's created some... Grating circumstances for a lot of parties, and I only wish things weren't that way... But it's as you've said: people seem to feel positively ''attacked'' that there are deletion requests. I'm aware that humans treat assaults on their world-view as physical attacks, based on psychology, but I wasn't prepared for it in this context! I could have handled things better sooner if I'd only realized that... --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:FWIW, I was sincere. I do appreciate how you've conducted yourself and I am proud to have met/argued with you. Reminds me of the good old days, which I assure you were not as...grating as things can be today. I totally feel you on this, even if I disagree with your stances, and respect that you've taken to heart the things I said, even if you ''also'' don't entirely agree with it on a personal or technical level. Keep it up, my friend <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Actually, following my last response, if you wouldn't mind some conversation here, I have a few things I'd like to hear from you regarding one of the topics you brought up. I'm that guy at the table always wanting to play weird races. I've got 53 character sheets on Myth-Weavers that are structured to be ready to play at a moment's notice, and none of them are the same race or subclass. Do you think it's possible for a race to be balanced even if it doesn't follow the conventions and standards set by WotC, so long as the numbers are accounted for and the DM is allowed to have the final say on balance - since the game world is ultimately their creation, and the race must fit with that world? Having played Varkarrus' dullahan on three separate occasions, like I said, it is truly a favorite of mine - to the point that I have a book character based on the idea now! --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think that balance is objective, up to a point. A lot of it really depends, like you say, on the individual campaign. If you only run first-party modules, those might be designed with specific assumptions in mind that the dullahan breaks. But that isn't necessarily a fault of the race itself being unbalanced. ConcealedLight has tried to make the argument before that fire resistance is more powerful than cold resistance because more monsters in WotC's ''Monster Manual'' publication for D&D 5e has more monsters with fire attacks. He forgets that those monsters are optional and exist in a vacuum without context for if they'll be used by a DM. And if the DM runs an adventure in the arctic, which is probably more useful for a PC to have? I'd bet the arctic has monsters with cold attacks.<br />
<br />
:::It's good to design content with the assumption of it fitting in with Wizards of the Coast Approved Campaigns™, but D&D Wiki isn't WotC, and that's a good thing! WotC benefits more if all their stuff follows conventions, and so do players, frankly. But homebrew doesn't ''have'' to follow all those same conventions. It's enough to put a design disclaimer saying, "hey, this was designed outside of the assumptions first-party content makes but if you notice how it's different, you can still make fun adventures!" At the end of the day, the core rules are '''limited''' ''guidelines.'' They do not try to encompass all possible options or campaigns that may be run with them. They're used to run campaigns, and towards that end they're balanced against certain assumptions because you can't balance a game in a vacuum.<br />
<br />
:::And who is to tell a group they can't change those assumptions, huh? :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:38, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::That's the most concise description of the situation I've ever seen. I love it! And you're absolutely right! That also helps put into context why a DM of mine I only had a short while had banned homebrew; she was going to run Dragon Heist, and adored the canon! I have a feeling I'll be revisiting this page several times in the near future. Especially about how balance is affected by context in tabletops, and how the first party stuff should be guidelines to help tables eventually tell original stories of their own. I started at a table like that, so I was confused when running content from a first-party book why things were so stuffy. It's both an argument for ''and against'' homebrew, and I love it to death, I gotta say. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 17:49, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree with the sentiment about the core rules being guidelines. D&D exists as a base to launch different adventures. But the fun doesn't stem from sticking to tradition. What makes D&D fun is how you can introduce outside factors and stir up the typical. Yeah, anyone can run up to an Orc and stab it in the face. But how many people can say they got their Succubus to charm a local guard into offing a judge while you get off scott-free with no one the wiser?<br />
<br />
:::::I'm mostly around because I find there's still fun in making characters. There are a few interesting concepts about the site, but when a majority of things just feel like "Fighter derivative #3998", you tend to lose energy about these things.<br />
<br />
:::::Iunno. I feel like I'm just justifying my lurkerness at this point. :/ [[User:Umbra Lux|Nightmares are dreams too...]] ([[User talk:Umbra Lux|talk]]) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That's an excellent point, old friend! You can only make so many interesting things out of the same parts before you need to diversify. Look at D&D's own first-party backlog for examples: the 1e Unearthed Arcana book, the 2e Player's Option series, the 3.5e Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic, and other supplements designed to extend the boundaries of the rules outside of the assumptions of the core rules. Variety is the spice of life; don't sanitize other peoples' food just because you prefer tofu :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:52, 5 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1181421Talk:Main Page2019-06-05T13:45:50Z<p>GamerAim: Fixed.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Max7238&diff=1181179User talk:Max72382019-06-05T00:06:14Z<p>GamerAim: /* Adminship */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Welcome to D&D Wiki! == <br />
<br />
;Welcome!<br />
Hello Max7238, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your [[Special:Preferences|user preferences]] match your preferences.<br />
;Questions:<br />
If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's [[Help:Talk Pages|talk page]]. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on [[DnD Discussion]]s. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked [[User talk:Admin|here]]. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.<br />
;Formatting<br />
Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Help:Editing] on Wikipedia (or even their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Introduction] page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. [[Help:Portal]] also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.<br />
;Community<br />
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of [[Help:Behavioral Policy|policies]] are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette] when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|removal process]]. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. [[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:23, 22 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Deletion ==<br />
<br />
You do not need to "Support" a deletion. If there is no opposition an admin will review it and delete it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
: Certainly doesn't look that way with how every admin I've seen barring Geodude is acting. He's the only one not acting smug or looking down on / treating other users like peons, having rational discussion, on and off the wiki. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warning ==<br />
<br />
I am warning you for your [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk%3ADeletion_Policy&type=revision&diff=1180640&oldid=1180638 edit] for ill-considered accusations of impropriety, taunting or baiting, and quoting another editor out of context. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
: I'm sorry that's how you interpret that, but I'll say again that such is not my intention. I'm not sure where or which quote of whom was out of context, either. It's difficult to give anything I'm saying or doing proper consideration given that I'm angry over this matter beyond time, as works published and rights established can, and often do, outlive their creators. I've said at the top of my own user page that I'm used to being misunderstood over text, but since it's the only avenue afforded to me, it's the only choice I have. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:46, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: I disagree that this warning is valid. It possibly could have been a bit nicer, but there is reasonable evidence that ''some'' users are not acting in good faith, and we shouldn’t punish users for trying to make their voices heard when they believe a user is acting improperly, regardless of that user’s status in the community. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 13:02, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It's great to hear that you agree there is room to improve in the discussions.<br />
::Here are some quotes:<br />
::(1) ''"I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality.''"<br />
::(2) ''"Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat maybe twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::''You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to.''"<br />
::(3) ''"You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website.""''<br />
::Respectively in the order of the warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:16, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Okay, I think I understand your reasoning a bit better. Am I correct when I say that you take issue more with the specific way Max chose to word the above quotes, and not the actual idea that was communicated? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 13:26, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::While I appreciate the sentiment, Geodude, please don't put yourself under unnecessary risk on my behalf. It's all a matter of perspective. For the first, I stand by what I said, and there's plenty of evidence to support it. Again, unfortunately for me, a lot of it is in the Discord where I can't reach it and it apparently doesn't count. For the second, maybe I misinterpreted what you meant, but you weren't exactly clear on your intended meaning if that's what happened. I, again, stand by that my perspective is of being treated like what I say or think doesn't matter, and that it doesn't mean anything to you if I have valid points or not. That's how it looks to me, honestly. If that isn't the case, I would only be too glad to hear it, as it seems we're both not very good with text conversation if that's the case. The third is made out of anger, and I will apologize for it, but I'm not removing it or changing it. Context is important, and if I look like an idiot by my own hand, it's important that other people see that too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adminship ==<br />
<br />
How would you feel about being nominated by me for adminship on D&D Wiki?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 18:06, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race)&diff=1181176Talk:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)2019-06-04T23:55:30Z<p>GamerAim: /* Deletion */ Added a flowery-sounding, terribly-composed reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Quality Article Nomination==<br />
{{Quality Article Nominee|[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
Okay, barring this being a featured article, it's ''at least'' worthy of being a quality article, assuming I put an image up, no?<br />
<br />
:I anticipated that QAs are pages ready to be dropped into any campaign. If there is a design disclaimer then it needs some examination to see if it suitable. If the detachable head is the thing that DMs need to be careful with, then ''that'' should be a Variant (uh oh, it going to be a variant of a variant) in the same way that the core rulebooks handle variants that use optional rules. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point there Mara. This should ideally be addressed before the nominations continue further. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've had a stab at doing this, although I would also like to rework the actual mechanics of the Cursed variant too. I also moved the Outcast variant to variants, since it's a variant. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Your "stab" has damaged the race considerably. Without the blindsight, the body cannot fight without its head without suffering disadvantage to all attacks, no matter how close to the enemy it is. The race cannot lose its head because it can summon the head to the body, which negates the author-intended use of the head as a risk factor and possible plot point in a module, one-shot, or campaign. The only change you've made that isn't completely out of left field is removing the subrace classifications. The removal, however, doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the race, it's just changing terminology.<br />
::::No, actually, even worse, you've removed any reference to the ''Call Steed'' cantrip created specifically for this race to use, and therefore also removed the intended investment the character should have in a singular creature as their bonded-for-life-steed. You've also removed the ability for the head to rest on the shoulders of the body, which negates the race's ability to blend in with other mortals who might be unfamiliar with the race. One could argue ''that'' is a substantial addition, if they prefer to be recognized immediately, and therefore most likely have a tougher time in RP. Furthermore, I just realized you removed ''all'' mentions of blindsight, not just for the regular version with its head, making the variants completely useless in combat or even navigating their environment. The entire thing is completely chopped up and ruined in this state. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Hi<br />
:::::*I have tried to remove the implication that the body and head are two separate creatures, which is the Design Disclaimer issue that would prevent this from being a QA.<br />
:::::*I removed the blindsight because being able to bypass invisibility, illusions and hiding creatures (even at 10 feet) is very powerful at 1st level.<br />
:::::*"The body" (i.e., you) fights normally since you draw line of sight to your head. You would have disadvantage if you are trying to attack something that is not in the line of sight to your head, which is a fair tradeoff for the versatility of being able to put your head somewhere else.<br />
:::::*Call Steed. This spell is up for deletion, so I tried to find alternatives. Furthermore, I have problems with call steed's balance. A ''cantrip'' that increases a beast's Intelligence to 6 and establishes a telepathic link?<br />
:::::*You can deride the reformatting of the variants if you want but it's something that needed doing.<br />
:::::*I had considered the placing of the head on the shoulders, but I also was interested in what was possible if it wasn't allowed. The rationale of "blending in with other mortals" is a little moot considering the extraordinary appearance of many other player races. In any event this is trivial to add back in.<br />
:::::*I ''already stated'' that I need to look at the cursed variant's mechanics. Maybe it will have blindsight, maybe it won't, please hold off on your complaints until I've actually done this.<br />
:::::Finally, the mantra of wikis is "be bold"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold], since anything can be undone. Good-faith edits should not be shamed with comments like "damaging the race" and "chopped up and ruined". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:47, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Edit: I just read through the Cursed variant and there's nothing saying that you would be blind, so I don't understand the complaint that it doesn't have blindsight. I was careful to state that the variant's features replaced the decapitated trait, so the restriction of "only draw line of sight to your head" does not apply. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having playtested the race myself on more than once occasion... There was no implication that they were separate creatures, just a caveat that certain spells might not affect both unless they were both in range. Blindsight does not pass invisibility, illusions, or hiding creatures unless the creature ''with'' blindsight makes a check (actively attempts to do so), like any other creature would. Bypassing those things is what Truesight is for. One of the main points of the race was to be able to have your head be elsewhere while your body could still fight, which was meant to cover for a wide variety of situations - which it did, in playtest. Being able to instantly recall your head to your body completely negates the majority of the draw and risk of choosing to play the race, which was what made it fun to begin with. Call Steed IS up for deletion, you're right, so I can't argue with wanting to find alternatives; however, it was included to serve the part of the idea where a dullahan was expected (culturally) to bond with a single mount for life and be able to communicate with it much like a real life person can do with a trained animal, hence the increased INT. I can also understand changing the classification of subrace to variant. I find it hard to see the edits as good-faith when the page was requested for deletion, then the template was removed prematurely despite it qualifying for deletion based on policy, and now another user is suddenly interested and attempting to become a primary contributor to block the page's deletion. If you had, for example, created a new race page and used 2nd Variant, as I've seen done before, you could easily make all your desired changes and request that page be QA, and I bet you'd get it because yours would be closer in line to officially published content. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:00, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::*The invisibility condition says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. Blindsight is a special sense. Blindsight also says that you perceive your surroundings without relying on sight. Any obscurement that relies on sight is therefore overcome. <br />
::::::::*You can still play as not being able to summon your head, if you look at the text I added to the Cursed variant.<br />
::::::::*There was no deletion proposal message on the page when I made my edits, so I was unaware that there was a deletion proposal or the reasons for it. Your allegations against me are unfair and I'm sorely tempted to bring it up as a [[Help:Behavioral Policy|civility]] issue. <br />
::::::::*Having said that, I am completely open to starting a new page and putting my version there instead, if there is a concensus for it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I must have been thinking of the below argument about illusions; you're right about the invisibility. Out of combat that might be an issue, but in terms of stopping a surprise attack from an invisible creature, the creature would still technically approach and attack off-turn, surprising you anyway. It would be impossible to become Cursed under your conditions, since you can summon your head, so it would be strange to be without it for ten days unless you were rendered unconscious for that long somehow. I had assumed you would have done your research, and part of that assumption was that you were aware of the huge issue now surrounding Varkarrus' desire to leave the wiki along with the pages they've created. My assumption, then, caused me to mischaracterize your edits as above. Not only would I support the creation of a new page to maintain the integrity of this one, but I would gladly help edit in any way necessary and playtest like I did with this one - without making any claim to the page, in the event you ever wanted it deleted. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::You can't summon your head if you choose the Cursed variant: that whole variant is now for if you want the style of play originally intented.<br />
::::::::::I will petition to Green Dragon that I create a new Dullahan page with all new text/traits and ask him to reconsider the deletion of this page. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Featured Article Nomination==<br />
{{Failed Featured Article Nominee|{{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
I believe this article is worthy of being a featured article. It's got it all: fleshed out and detailed lore, interesting new game mechanics, versatility, balance, fluff, and a nice piece of artwork to round it off. It's been a few weeks since the last major edit, and a full month since the initial concept, too. Maybe it could use a few touchups, and the nomination process really brings out the search for where those can go. Whaddya say, folks? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have failed this nomination after two months of no discussion and no consensus formed. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' Seems pretty shit imo. I don't see how this is a race or a people, maybe a racial class or smth. Like, how they are linked to the Feywild? and how does this plays off or uses any of the actual Dullahan besides the headless horsemen gimmick? You should try giving your "races" more character before submitting for this featured thing or whatever and making such claims in your intro. <br />
:Everyone is entitled to their opinions but telling someone their idea is "pretty shit" & "they should try giving etc" is unacceptable. Please check out [[Help:Behavioral Policy]] or ask questions if this is a problem. I issued an <s>IP</s> block for this, account creation enabled if you wish to register and contribute politely and constructively. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' I've been meaning to give this nomination a review for some time now but its overall unconventionality makes it difficult to formulate the issues with this page and so I've been avoiding it. However, while there are a few more general issues here, I'm more concerned about the significant issue of splitting the PC into two entities and then applying a plethora of tedious rule specifications so that that entity can function. I think that if you have to change how the game functions at a basic level for the sake of one player's homebrew, then that homebrew doesn't eloquently work with the standards of the game. Furthermore, if that you need to read five separate rule specifications for each of your PC's races alone then it applies further workload for the DM and as far as fixing some of the issues with this race, I imagine this list of rule specification will only get bigger and more tiresome. As such, due to the tedious and centrally flawed nature of the race, I will be opposing this nomination until it can be reworked. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:59, 1 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
: Okay, I don't want to sound biased but I think your reasoning for opposing the FA nomination sets a worrying and dangerous precedent. Your reason for opposing this article as FA is the exact same reason why I nominated it in the first place. I very strongly feel that homebrew, whether in D&D, or other games, should break convention! Experimenting with game mechanics is fun and can lead to interesting results! So, sure, the Dullahan requires a few errata (and let's face it, there isn't many and they're easy to remember) to make the disembodied head work... but, if you were playing D&D as a Dullahan, with a competent GM who is easily able to keep track of said errata, wouldn't that be a fun experience with a lot of potential for the kinds of shenanigans that make D&D fun? That's for an experienced super-organized GM though, if the rules are too clunky for more mundane GMs (and I really don't think they are), the fact that the experience would be fun and interesting means that it'd be worth the effort to make it work vs abandoning it entirely. Either way, GMs are under no obligation to allow a homebrew concept even if it's a D&Dwiki featured article, and I feel there's going to need to be a community-wide discussion on how conventional a piece of D&D homebrew needs to be in order to be allowed as a featured article. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:45, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment''' Overall I think this is written well and has the right amount of information a feature article needs. It has things I really like too. Fey, it has flavor and isn't just throwing two creature types on there being all bland. Like, I want to support this article simply because it doesn't do what so many articles with two types did. Lifestyle choice is cool. Different, and interesting. But this kind of sums up my feels on most the traits. Just very unsure of them. Blindsight on the body, I think I get it? But if the body and head have a telepathic bond, I don't think you need Blindsight. Which, in regards to the head/body relationship, there's no limit to how far the head can go? Personally not a fan of this but I can see it being in the realm of "Rule of Cool". The head specifically with its temporary hit points and shared pool with the body is interesting. Again, traits that I'm just unsure of. Temp HP is my fav mechanic right now. I'm not sure how it feel about it here, combined with unconventional AC calculation which it too is another bundle of neat sprinkled with, hmmm different. I'd be more inclined to use normal AC calc for the head, force the player to protect thing as much as possible. Be afraid to not be one unit. With all that, I think its great something different has been presented. It follows right along with 5e philosophy and design to add something new to the game, not just rehash and reuse existing material. For me, it is just a little too different. I don't want to impede the articles success just because my hesitation though. Good luck with the nomination. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Can confirm. There's no limit on how far the head and body can be from each other. Right now, that even extends to other planes. If that's a bit excessive it could be tuned down, but the potential for a dullahan's head to be separated from their body by long distances has lots of potential for stories, and player schemes: sending a dullahan's head to fly down a tunnel to scout ahead without being seen / fly over obstacles that can't be walked over, to deliver messages. Or the dullahan's head could be captured by foes, and the body blindly writes down what the villain is saying... or the reverse; a villain unfamiliar with a dullahan's flying head chained their body but their head is escaping to find help. Even when they aren't separated long distances, the body's blindsight is still useful as even when in a small area, the body can detect foes outside the head's sight or vice-versa. It's true: the Dullahan is an unusual and unique race, but it was because I wanted to explore its head/body mechanic that I created the page, and is the main reason why I feel this page should be a FA. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
::All fair points. I think one other would be a DM would have to figure out what even happens if the two can separate that far because as one example is, the head could be stolen! You've still got a few months though. Maybe there's a way to polish things up so that the traits mirror criteria for variant rules of featured articles. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
'''Support''' I'm not huge into 5e mechanics, so I won't pretend I am by giving a detailed rundown of what's good or bad about this race. It's imaginative, unconventional and well-written all around. Kinda tired of all the FAs being races lately, but at least this one is different, as CL pointed out.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
:OI! \o/ I pointed it out too! How ya gonna forget your pal BigShot?? grrrr >.< /jk <3 [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opposed''' I have looked over this and Varkarrus their previous comments. But I must disagree, a race is not where you break the mold as this is where you break the game easily, subclasses and classes can be very unique races quite simply cannot deviate too much from the norm before becomming overpowered but lets say why this is overpowered. Lets start from the top to bottom. Fey ancestory, sure thats fine and all but be carefull as this is the elf their thing. Now to their second ability, Call steed. First this cantrip is basically useless. The requirements are too much for any usefull use and the mount having to actually travel makes it not very game changing as there are two situations. Either the user is already on the mount, or so far away that this cantrip is not usefull. Outcast however, eh I guess, nothing unique and nothing bad. Now time for the reason why this is op as hell. Blindsight, this wording is just bad, if you dont want it to be actual blindsight just word it that the body can only see 10 feet around it. as the only thing blindsight is is being conciously aware what is around them. Being able to cast spells from both your head and body is just kinda op. I dont how to word this all in such a small text but it just very broken. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 07:27, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I feel like I should mention that the Dullahan race is being tested for balance atm in Cotsu's homebrew testing campaign. I will neither accept nor refute your comments on balance, just wait a bit for the campaign to give feedback on balance. Though, I am fine with rewording the blindsight feature. That said, I should correct your misconception: [[Call Steed (5e Spell)]] isn't "basically useless", it's the ability [[5e SRD:Find Steed]] reworked into a cantrip. It does provide benefits beyond just messaging a bonded steed! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:53, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:: I have checked the wording of the spell, it needs to have been bonded already, if the mount dies it cannot be resummoned and if it is somewhere else it has to physically move troughout the plane instead of being summoned. So yes how it is worded right now, it is borderline unusable. and if it is the find steed worked into the find steed then that is broken and steals the paladin specific spell for anyone to take which is just not fun. Blindsight gives you immunity to all visual illusions and no sneaking up behind them. Racial balance really does not need any playtesting before you can judge the balance of it, if you do need that it shows inexperience (Which is not bad, we all start at some point) some features are very much overpowered to the point it outshines most other races. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 10:50, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::Call Steed and Find Steed both allow for mounted combat as a seamless unit, and allowing the user to target both themselves and their mount with a spell: this is a far more important component to the spell than having the mount arrive instantaneously. Depending on where you keep your mount, it may only be a few rounds away. If you aren't in combat, waiting for your mount to arrive before leaving isn't a big deal either. Also: the Musicus meter provides scoring for blindsight, and keep in mind that the Dullahan only has 10 feet of it, too! The Cursed Dullahan may have 30 ft of blindsight, but they literally cannot see out of that range: a pretty fair trade if you ask me. I don't appreciate the "inexperience" remark, I've been at this for a year now. And, when you make a mold-breaking race like the Dullahan, YES it's going to need playtesting for balance. I also want to point out that WotC have released several mold-breaking races. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::: A year is an extremely short time, I call myself inexperienced still and have played and dmed for almost 7 years. Find steed is a paladin only spell for a reason and should stay this way as it is as icon to the paladin as find familiar to the wizard (and warlock) Call Steed is a worse version, an unneeded one at that. As like said before, either your mount is right below you or too far away to call. A Cantrip that should not exist. I do not care for the musicus meter, blindsight gives immunity to these things, despite only having 10. Based on the mystic, Tremorsense is a first level spell (something weaker then blind or true sight) and true sight a third level spell, making blind sight a second level spell. (Based on its power compared to these other two) and that is for 1 minute. having this permanent is incredibly op, no matter how small Not seeing out that range really does not matter, as either a character plays around that or they dont play this race. And sure, give me one example that actually worked without having the dm have to house rule things --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::I'd just like to reinforce that you should not call other users inexperienced unless they themselves have identified as inexperienced. Doing so can come off as belittling. As for your comment that racial balance does not require playtesting, I think that the developers of D&D 5e themselves would disagree, considering that the game was in development for years. You also say that blind sight is (or should be) a 2nd level spell. So is darkvision, which races have for free. Yes, darkvision lasts much longer, and 1:1 having blind sight as a race might be less "balanced" even at only 10 feet, but there is still some room for a race to have it. At the end of the day, homebrew is not for every table; even first-party content is not for every table, but homebrew has more freedom to try new things. If the DM doesn't want to plan around having a dullahan, he won't allow one in his game. I know we are to refrain from the "only a good DM" fallacy, but the truth is a DM should not allow all content &mdash; homebrew or from first-party supplements &mdash; without reviewing it first. This article has no IRR templates on it, so I don't see why its balance is being questioned solely in regards to its potential as a featured article.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::Just my thoughts. Call stead is a good spell as it prevents you from losing your stead because you had to leave it behind or because some random stole it, although someone could add that you know where the steed is when you cast the cantrip in case it can't get to you. Minor question, with call steed can you say anything else telepathically or only to come. As for blindsight; the fact it lets you ignore illusions and invisibility is a problem for the true dullahan, it is fine with the cursed dullahan because it is blind and possibly deaf (which should be specified) so you can have interesting shenanigans where it can see through the illusion but it does not know that the others are seeing an illusion. With the true dullahan the blindsight on the head is excessive and with the body maybe make it so it still has the blind condition or something? But otherwise I think the class is good, I am looking forward to using this race. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::: I feel it's, again, important to point out that the Blindsight on the True Dullahan extends to just 10 feet. By the time the Dullahan is within 10 feet of an illusion, its likely already too late. Still, I can add that it can't see through illusions; only invisibility and darkness, if you feel like that'd help? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: Even with 10 feet that can tell you if a person you are talking to and want to ambush/kidnap is really there or if they're an illusion, or if one section of a wall is actually not there and a group of minions are about to ambush you, on top it deals with invisibllity. If a DM didn't really use illusions, blindsight wouldn't be a big problem, but if they did it would make some fun things you can do with illusions pointless so saying or just suggesting that illusions affect blindsight would make it perfectly fine. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Musicus Rating==<br />
{{Musicus|6}}<br />
<br />
=== Base ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Fey Ancestry<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Cantrip<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Skill Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 2.5 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== True Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Darkvision<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1(?) || Flying Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Blindsight /10ft<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|str}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || No Food/Water/Air<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Limited Blindsight<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Portable Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== 3 Star Vote ==<br />
<br />
Since the voting is anonymous I'd personally like to provide transparency when I vote and I am guilty of not giving it 5 stars. I explained my thoughts above but if there are more questions why I voted this way, I don't mind sharing. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:16, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm curious as to why, given that the usual logic is "one star is awful, two is below average, three is average or acceptable, four is above average, five is exceptional." I suppose it depends on what your metric is, as well. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Reasons are above in the Featured Article Nomination discussion. I don't really argue with Redhawk's points either. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 21:09, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Having read the above, I certainly would. The fact that some other articles that are lower quality are featured, yet this one is not, baffles me to no end. I will, again, say that it really just depends on what your metric is. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying "this is a matter of preference, and yours clearly isn't the same as mine." --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Well maybe you can explain why this is better than I give credit or better than nameless featured articles. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 07:17, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Gladly. For starters, Call Steed isn't a useless cantrip. Before the update to this race today, it was the only way for the head to reliably find its body again - using the telepathic link with the mount and keeping the body mounted, taking advantage of a saddle, class, or feat that gives advantage to staying mounted. Having the head and body in separate places made for great RP moments when I've used this character in three different one-shots because she fit the setting. The head acting as a scout, or going WITH the scout, and the body relaying simple concepts via hand signs (advance, retreat, danger, be quiet, hold position) made for great tactics.<br />
:::::If an enemy has 15ft or more of movement, the blindsight does not save the body or head, because the enemy would still slip in and attack off-turn, therefore retaining surprise. Blindsight does not see through illusions, which are magical tricks to the brain; that's what TRUEsight is for. All the blindsight did for the character, in any occasion, was allow the body to fight while the head was elsewhere. The use of a glaive for reach allowed the character to fight to the limits of its vision, but move accurately thanks to the mount's vision. Cavalier Fighter, arguably the second-most optimized version of this race, still did not place her above other party members with vanilla races, nor did it make her feel like "the main character" of any one-shot.<br />
:::::The myriad of mechanics involved in this race, and playing it correctly, make it an absolute joy to play. My table has not only NOT found issue with it, even as a Cavalier, but pointed out that an Eldritch Knight that can cast spells and use a bonus action to melee attack would be even more powerful. In fact, one of my DMs even buffed her so she would be effective, saying that the mount should gain HP with her, and that the two could take hits for one another - effectively acting almost as a druid's Wild Shape temporary hit points. At the end of all calculation, this meant she had 244 HP (max CON and Tough at Lv20) + 183 for the horse (31+8x19) for 427HP. My Totem Barbarian has an effective HP of 325x2= 650HP (24CON, Tough, Totem damage resist plus a ring to resist psychic damage). Their damage per turn is about the same (four glaive swings or two maul swings with rage bonus), both can tank by imposing disadvantage or granting enemies advantage to goad hits.<br />
:::::I've played the race several times, run the math several times, and both in theory and practice, everything has meshed together exactly as it seems it was intended. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I did read all this and go over my original thoughts awhile ago. I changed my vote to a four. There's aspects I am still not sold on but I can concede it is better than a 3. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 06:59, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletion ==<br />
'''Support''' There is no reason this page cannot be deleted as per the previous requested based on wiki policy. There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request. The request template was also removed prior to the 14 days listed for discussion to occur. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1049612&oldid=1049590 diff] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1068474&oldid=1054068 diff]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::First, your citations only point to grammatical help, which hardly constitutes as someone (in this case an admin) becoming a "primary contributor" unless you ''really'' reach on your definition. No extra substance was added to the idea in question, no history, no culture, no new features, etc.<br />
::Second, because administration failed to honor a valid request for deletion and removed the deletion template prematurely, there's now another user who is beginning to edit the page. As of right now, the only thing they've managed to do is reword one of the main features of the race which, I would argue, was both unnecessary and removes one of the author intended uses of the race: a search for their stolen head. As a matter of fact, if I am pressed, I can easily sight the author's own words on the matter to prove such was the intention, which therefore makes that a violation of editing policy as written. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:07, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I'm sorry, ''what'' was a violation of editing policy? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:56, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::: I think what Max is trying to say is that he feels authorial intent is being disregarded, from my conversation with him on Discord and his comments above, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or coarse. I will agree with Geodude that I guess I should have chosen my words better, but he's also right about his interpretation of my statement. This is why I don't like the posh talk - makes it kinda tough to figure out what people're saying. As long as there's no swearing, I could probably just start typing more normally and be misunderstood less. Think I'm gonna do that. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Support''' I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contrubtions (with the intent of creating a new Dullahan page with new text and my rewritten traits). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removing the flying speed, and making the traits usable is wholly a significant contribution for this race. Not only that but numerous bits of advice on the talk page also shaped this race. However, let's let consensus sort this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Based on the talk surrounding the FA nomination above, and based on my own playtesting on three occasions, the race was perfectly usable in the state it was in. Everything worked as intended, and the table enjoyed the experience, even going as far as to request I play the character the third time. Were there any points on the talk page that ended up being implemented into the race? And, further, the topic of grammatical help or minor tweaks to numbers has been covered above as well. Was there another point to discuss to reach consensus? I had fallen under the impression that it had been established, aside from hearing ConcealedLight's opinion on the matter, or EpicBoss' opinion, as they were the other two who changed wording for clarity. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:A version of the article can return upon its deletion, for one thing. For another, the length of time an article has existed seems a tad irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted by request from the sole significant contributor. Even further, the author has offered to create a back-up .pdf version by request, so it's not as though the content will disappear for good - in this state or in one that follows the conventions and guidelines of this wiki. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I am, and always have been, opposed to this section of the deletion policy. a) if the article can be restored upon deletion, deletion is a waste of time; b) D&D Wiki would be all the lesser without this article, so its deletion is detrimental to the users and the health of the website; c) saving it as a .pdf (or on a user-page) does not allow users to find it on dynamic page lists, so users cannot find it, and point b is invoked.<br />
::I feel for Vark and I understand she is upset, but I will never personally support - whether GD allows it or not - the right of users to take away things that they willingly and knowingly gave to the community. Arbitrary deletion of valuable content defeats the purpose of preserving homebrew.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I can't really agree that it's arbitrary given the context. Restoring the page after deletion has a lot of important implications, including removing the original author's name from subsequent versions. If the wiki would be lesser without it, despite the ability to recreate it in spirit, then that seems to imply to me that, perhaps, the author/creator's work deserves more respect than it's been shown, especially recently. If it is, in fact, shown that respect, it would be deleted as the author requested. If she wants to leave the playground and take her toys with her, the fact that it's someone else's favorite doesn't change that it's hers. This race happens to be my single favorite page on the entire wiki; I completely understand how you feel, in my own way! But at the end of the day, it ''should'' be a creator's right to retract their creations if they feel they aren't being respected. A painter can remove their work from a gallery if it is mocked or defaced; I see this in a similar fashion. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1) I understand that Vark has had issues with the community, but I still consider all deletion requests based on personal reason to be arbitrary, regardless of whether they can or will be enforced by the administration.<br />
::::2) Legally-speaking, reposting the article without attribution would be, well, illegal unless Varkarrus declared the content to be free of copyright in accordance with U.S. copyright law. In other words, any reposting would still retain her name or else have to be deleted for copyright violation.<br />
::::3) I agree that Vark's work deserves more respect, and when I was more active, I even championed this. If you look above at my support for the Featured Article Nomination, is it any surprise I wish to keep this article around? :)<br />
::::4) The thing is, she's not leaving with HER toys. It is more akin to a painter donating a work to an art gallery. Sure, it's sad to see it defaced, but you GAVE IT AWAY. Please see my more detailed response on the deletion policy talk page. Vark was herself involved enough in the community to have known for a good long time that she did not have total creative or distributive control over "her" content. D&D Wiki is not - in spirit or in practice - an art gallery in the way that you describe, even if certain policies were - against my suggestion - enforced to give some more control to authors. In spite of those policies, it is helpful to come to D&D Wiki with a preference for "ours" over "mine" :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:40, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Basically if you release works under a copyleft license or make it public domain, it is irrevocable, you have no right to change your mind later. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:46, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having seen your post in the deletion policy page, I have to agree, once again. However, it is important to clarify my earlier statements, since there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that the page simply be reposted; until just recently, another user was making strides to completely rework the page to more closely follow convention and to remove many of the features users found of questionable balance. What I'm suggesting is the removal of this page, as per the request of the author and sole significant contributor, per deletion policy - and then a new page to be created in the spirit of the old, as re-imagined by other users to follow the guidelines of this wiki. I certainly did see your above comments, and I appreciate the discourse now as well.<br />
::::::Ultimately, however, I can't agree that every case can or should be "ours" over "mine." If a user creates a page, contributes many hours of their time and tens of thousands of bytes to it, then someone else just rewords it a bit to sound more professional, that reminds me of an editor to a book. The editor does not suddenly own the idea because they removed a few orphans and changed some words, and if the author wanted their book removed from shelves, the editor wouldn't have a say. What an editor does is invaluable work, absolutely, but if the core idea remains untouched, as it should, it remains the brain-child of its creator, and a part of that person, in a way. It's for this reason, my logic surrounding this discussion and motivating my fervor in it, that I continue to support the deletion of several pages.<br />
::::::After Mara's ninja (lol), I also need to add that I completely understand that, and the license isn't being revoked because of this. D&D Wiki still owns the rights to the reproduction of the page, which is a point I missed when replying, and the version hosted here. If the page is deleted, I don't believe that changes, unfortunately, unless there's wording that would invalidate the license once the work disappeared... Which would turn out to be yet another reason for me to support these deletions. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I agree with you, again, that it's unfortunate that this article will likely be sanitized to appeal to the personal preferences of other users without Vark here to defend it. I try to strike a balance between siding with authors, and I always believed that many changes desired of this article violated the spirit of the article and intention of the author (Vark). I've made the case many times that, just because the article violates convention, does not mean that it is wrong for doing so. Variant articles that wish for radically-different interpretations of this race should be created wholesale. So, again, I agree that it's sad, but these are two separate issues and once that am willing to fight separately if need-be :(<br />
:::::::Furthermore, Vark herself may have written up tens of thousands of bytes worth of content, but those bytes were D&D Wiki's, not hers. If she wished to maintain total control over her content, she could have hosted it on her own website or a blog that had its own policies concerning user ownership of content. I will concede that editorial edits should not - and do not - constitute sufficient modification of the content to nullify the invoked deletion clause as written. But I do not oppose the deletion on "legal" grounds, but instead intend to make an impassioned argument as to why the article should stay.<br />
:::::::I believe this to be the cause of the confusion, as you are arguing that the page can ''technically'' be deleted because the non-Vark edits were all editorial and therefore the article is "hers" in regards to the deletion clause. To use your book analogy, D&D Wiki is the publisher, not the editor, and Vark is seeking to violate a contract and have her book pulled from shelves against the will - and rights - of the publisher to which she signed over distributive rights. For a real-world example (if I'm not mistaken), George Lucas gave 20th Century Fox perpetual distribution rights for the original Star Wars. George Lucas could not have then decided that, because he didn't like Fox, he should have full distribution rights.<br />
:::::::Of course my comparison to Star Wars falls apart in both that D&D Wiki as a website does not control distribution, but that anyone who adheres to the GNU FDL 1.3 ''can'' '''and''', as per the cause of our disagreement, that Vark was technically ''given'' the right to control distribution on this site. Come to think of it, if someone else did re-upload the content, could the clause still be invoked since Vark is still "primary author" in absolute terms of original idea and content contributed to the work? But I digress.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't think this was arguing with me, but the GNU FDL still requires attribution, does it not? I could be wrong - it's been awhile since I acted as legal adviser here - but that was my understanding that we'd have to attribute Vark, regardless. Of course, you may also have a point that Vark cannot release the edits of others under public domain, just her own, which could theoretically complicate matters of absolving attribution.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Actually, if I understand you correctly here, we're completely in agreement. Yes, the GNU FDL requires attribution, and it expressly states that such is one of its primary purposes. As it turns out, I completely understand the desire of a creator to license to a publisher, even if whether or not their work will be respected is questionable; as a self-published author myself, my main goal is to have as many eyes as possible on my work, in an attempt to broaden the perspectives of my readers, even if in some small way. Unfortunately, passion alone cannot save this page or any other, and I really do mean that. If passion were all it took, my life, and the lives of many others would be much better off. What this all really means is that, again, there was no reason to oppose the deletion in the first place, because the, I'm sorry, shady legal policies of this wiki mean that Varkarrus only has the copyright to the versions of the page where she was the ''only'' person to edit it. D&DW will, forever, retain the rights to host a copy of her idea and edit it, as well as distribute it freely because of the license. Luckily, however, that doesn't give D&DW or any editor of the page after her rights to royalties and the like, should she publish the race in an entirely original state - but the license to edit and redistribute the copy here on the wiki will never go away. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 16:11, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, that's completely right. Vark retains all copyrights on her original content (though it should be noted, for the record, the concept and name of this race are not her original creations, just this implementation), but she also used that copyright to publish a copy under the GNU FDL 1.3, which gives anyone the legal right (where applicable) to republish the work within the stipulations of said license. She's legally entitled to publish the race outside of the GNU FDL 1.3 on DriveThruRPG or anywhere else so long as she isn't publishing the copyrighted material of any other entity without permission.<br />
:::::::::I would ask, as a personal favor, that you do not refer to D&D Wiki as having "shady legal policies." There are times when users post without understanding the implications, but Vark knew what she was doing and had time to stop posting content if she didn't want it to be released under the GNU FDL 1.3. She chose to host her content on this platform, and by default all content posted (including this talk page) is released under that license, which entitles anyone to reproduce it without express written permission. As I said, if Vark wanted stricter control, there are other avenues she could have taken. She was not tricked or coerced into hosting her content on this website.<br />
:::::::::And so, since Vark willingly hosted her content on a platform (initially) dedicated to the preservation and communal development of homebrew, I believe that is sufficient grounds - in principle - to oppose the deletion. The terms of hosting content here are quite clear, and they do not include, "until you dislike us." D&D Wiki is not a storage container.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:55, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerAim&diff=1181171User talk:GamerAim2019-06-04T23:39:00Z<p>GamerAim: /* Quick Note */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 50)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==???==<br />
<br />
Why did you delete your talk page? --Redrum 14:29, 29 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I also don't expect myself to spend the time to correct your mistake "just you like it", if that's what you mean with your edit summary. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:49, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand this comment, GD. I took GA's comment of "thanks for nothing" to be indicative of his frustration toward the wiki in general, and not referring specifically to your undeleting of this talk page. And I do think you should have blanked this page after restoring it; it takes literally two seconds to press Ctrl+A &rarr; Backspace. Though I'm not sure why GA deleted his talk page instead of blanking it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:31, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I deleted it because I thought I could, as it's my own talk page. There was no malice behind it; it quite literally has my name on it, so I assumed it was fine. I don't remember why I wanted to delete it, TBH. I also don't really care if it's deleted, which is why I acknowledged that maybe it'll be restored and that's fine; I just wanted it to be blanked if anyone wanted to go through the trouble of going against my wish to have my talk page deleted. Like Geodude said, it'd have been quick to do since you already spent the time to correct my "mistake."<br />
::Again, no malice. Sorry if I offended, GD. Like Geodude said, I'm overall deflated these days and that edit summary could have been directed towards anyone, even myself.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm still confused as to why you suddenly got very cynical... did something happen between you and GD? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::It was a whole ''THING''. There are a few different pages you should read if you want to catch up on the wikidrama; off the top of my head some important ones are [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/GamerAim (2)|GamerAim's RfA]], [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server|the discussion surrounding GamerAim's Discord server]], [[User talk:Jwguy#Resignation|Jwguy's resignation as admin]], [[Help talk:Warning Policy#GamerAim|the discussion around GamerAim's warning]], and [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SgtLion (2)|SgtLion's RfA]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 17:56, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okey dokey... so is GamerAim still an admin or what? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::GamerAim is still an admin, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:26, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I must ask that you don't answer questions for me on my talk page, Geodude671. It was directed exclusively at me and ''my'' relationship with GD.<br />
:::::::But yes, there was drama over me disagreeing with how Green Dragon chose to run D&D Wiki and how he chose to let others run it as well. Jwguy's resignation isn't relevant, and there was also some stuff involving ConcealedLight's warnings, multiple discussions about Discord (they should be on that same page as the one linked) and probably more. However, I won't link them because at this point I don't care; GD made his decisions, and as much as it may hurt me, I accept that he and I have differing opinions on what D&D Wiki should be.<br />
:::::::I intend to be the last remaining D&D Wiki admin when Geodude671, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan and Quincy are gone. Though honestly, I doubt I'll outlive Geodude; whatever our relationship, I have to admit he's a persistent little bugger ;) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:17, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::"''Challenge Accepted!'' ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::@Cosmos, if you do read those pages, take them with a grain of salt. They are nothing but a blip of the things that occurred in the last 2 years and don't even begin to reveal the tip of an iceberg. GamerAim's reply is most appropriate for the matter and I hope you can focus on that versus anything else. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I hope this doesn't turn into Manga-style fights! --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:01, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Tsunami Bomb==<br />
<br />
How much "Force" will it take to start a tsunami by a man-made Device? --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 9 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, I'm not a meteorologist. The "butterfly effect" posits that even a small amount of force could create a hurricane. A tsunami could probably be created with a couple megaton bomb.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why would anyone (outside of a villain) want to create a GIANT tidalwave? --Redrum 18:02, 16 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Megatons is bigger than what I had in mind. I was hoping to create something that would take out a couple of coastal goblin "villages"!!!--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:24, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==5e Wedding Crasher==<br />
<br />
My main 5e character has been hired to disrupt a wedding. I have access to a trick box that causes 1d4 fire damage when opened and some itching powder. I may want suggestions for other items (and/or spells). --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 13:05, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==experiment 78==<br />
<br />
Has anyone thought of a mind switching carpet?--Redrum 13:56, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure I understand what kind of item you are talking about... I see it is a carpet, but what is the "mind-switching" part? Not sure what that is supposed to do. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:57, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I think he means when 2 people stand on it (and maybe move around the right way) their minds (and/or souls) switch bodies. --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:49, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Crystal Seer==<br />
<br />
There is nothing that says a crystal ball can't be in the shape of a crystal skull, right?--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right...? Also, I keep seeing you comment on this Talk page, you do know that 1. You can make an account (which I suggest, seeing how often you get on here) and 2. GamerAim isn't exactly quite as active anymore (from what I've seen anyways) and so you might get admin responses faster on the Talk pages of other admins such as Green Dragon, Geodude, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy, or Masmurine. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::63.142.81.74, There is nothing that says crystal balls can't be in the shape of crystal skulls. My question to you is why do you ask? --Redrum 14:51, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Fancy ==<br />
<br />
Hey dude/dudette! You'd shown your "face" a bit and now you been MIA awhile. I hope your kicking some school but and things are good. Cheers GA! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. I'm not happy to see that the background (and indeed, the whole theme) has changed to something...well...not as aesthetically-pleasing. But I'm fine, otherwise.<br />
<br />
:<s>Seriously, the site looks amateurish now. What's up with that? I guess it's a good visual representation of everything I did to improve our reputation going down the drain...</s>--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::the conversation died. I think summer time has made lives busy (?) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 19:25, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quick Note ==<br />
<br />
Turns out, I ''can'' in fact be reasonable and polite when I'm treated with the same respect! As Green Dragon says, I'm not experienced with the atmosphere here on the wiki, or with how things are done here. I'm just far too invested, as usual, and I'm trying to do what I think is right, regardless of what I'm being told to say or do. It's created some... Grating circumstances for a lot of parties, and I only wish things weren't that way... But it's as you've said: people seem to feel positively ''attacked'' that there are deletion requests. I'm aware that humans treat assaults on their world-view as physical attacks, based on psychology, but I wasn't prepared for it in this context! I could have handled things better sooner if I'd only realized that... --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:FWIW, I was sincere. I do appreciate how you've conducted yourself and I am proud to have met/argued with you. Reminds me of the good old days, which I assure you were not as...grating as things can be today. I totally feel you on this, even if I disagree with your stances, and respect that you've taken to heart the things I said, even if you ''also'' don't entirely agree with it on a personal or technical level. Keep it up, my friend <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Actually, following my last response, if you wouldn't mind some conversation here, I have a few things I'd like to hear from you regarding one of the topics you brought up. I'm that guy at the table always wanting to play weird races. I've got 53 character sheets on Myth-Weavers that are structured to be ready to play at a moment's notice, and none of them are the same race or subclass. Do you think it's possible for a race to be balanced even if it doesn't follow the conventions and standards set by WotC, so long as the numbers are accounted for and the DM is allowed to have the final say on balance - since the game world is ultimately their creation, and the race must fit with that world? Having played Varkarrus' dullahan on three separate occasions, like I said, it is truly a favorite of mine - to the point that I have a book character based on the idea now! --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think that balance is objective, up to a point. A lot of it really depends, like you say, on the individual campaign. If you only run first-party modules, those might be designed with specific assumptions in mind that the dullahan breaks. But that isn't necessarily a fault of the race itself being unbalanced. ConcealedLight has tried to make the argument before that fire resistance is more powerful than cold resistance because more monsters in WotC's ''Monster Manual'' publication for D&D 5e has more monsters with fire attacks. He forgets that those monsters are optional and exist in a vacuum without context for if they'll be used by a DM. And if the DM runs an adventure in the arctic, which is probably more useful for a PC to have? I'd bet the arctic has monsters with cold attacks.<br />
<br />
:::It's good to design content with the assumption of it fitting in with Wizards of the Coast Approved Campaigns™, but D&D Wiki isn't WotC, and that's a good thing! WotC benefits more if all their stuff follows conventions, and so do players, frankly. But homebrew doesn't ''have'' to follow all those same conventions. It's enough to put a design disclaimer saying, "hey, this was designed outside of the assumptions first-party content makes but if you notice how it's different, you can still make fun adventures!" At the end of the day, the core rules are '''limited''' ''guidelines.'' They do not try to encompass all possible options or campaigns that may be run with them. They're used to run campaigns, and towards that end they're balanced against certain assumptions because you can't balance a game in a vacuum.<br />
<br />
:::And who is to tell a group they can't change those assumptions, huh? :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:38, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerAim&diff=1181143User talk:GamerAim2019-06-04T22:01:36Z<p>GamerAim: /* Quick Note */ Added a reply. Truly been nice meeting you.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 50)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==???==<br />
<br />
Why did you delete your talk page? --Redrum 14:29, 29 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I also don't expect myself to spend the time to correct your mistake "just you like it", if that's what you mean with your edit summary. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:49, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand this comment, GD. I took GA's comment of "thanks for nothing" to be indicative of his frustration toward the wiki in general, and not referring specifically to your undeleting of this talk page. And I do think you should have blanked this page after restoring it; it takes literally two seconds to press Ctrl+A &rarr; Backspace. Though I'm not sure why GA deleted his talk page instead of blanking it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:31, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I deleted it because I thought I could, as it's my own talk page. There was no malice behind it; it quite literally has my name on it, so I assumed it was fine. I don't remember why I wanted to delete it, TBH. I also don't really care if it's deleted, which is why I acknowledged that maybe it'll be restored and that's fine; I just wanted it to be blanked if anyone wanted to go through the trouble of going against my wish to have my talk page deleted. Like Geodude said, it'd have been quick to do since you already spent the time to correct my "mistake."<br />
::Again, no malice. Sorry if I offended, GD. Like Geodude said, I'm overall deflated these days and that edit summary could have been directed towards anyone, even myself.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm still confused as to why you suddenly got very cynical... did something happen between you and GD? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::It was a whole ''THING''. There are a few different pages you should read if you want to catch up on the wikidrama; off the top of my head some important ones are [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/GamerAim (2)|GamerAim's RfA]], [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server|the discussion surrounding GamerAim's Discord server]], [[User talk:Jwguy#Resignation|Jwguy's resignation as admin]], [[Help talk:Warning Policy#GamerAim|the discussion around GamerAim's warning]], and [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SgtLion (2)|SgtLion's RfA]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 17:56, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okey dokey... so is GamerAim still an admin or what? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::GamerAim is still an admin, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:26, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I must ask that you don't answer questions for me on my talk page, Geodude671. It was directed exclusively at me and ''my'' relationship with GD.<br />
:::::::But yes, there was drama over me disagreeing with how Green Dragon chose to run D&D Wiki and how he chose to let others run it as well. Jwguy's resignation isn't relevant, and there was also some stuff involving ConcealedLight's warnings, multiple discussions about Discord (they should be on that same page as the one linked) and probably more. However, I won't link them because at this point I don't care; GD made his decisions, and as much as it may hurt me, I accept that he and I have differing opinions on what D&D Wiki should be.<br />
:::::::I intend to be the last remaining D&D Wiki admin when Geodude671, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan and Quincy are gone. Though honestly, I doubt I'll outlive Geodude; whatever our relationship, I have to admit he's a persistent little bugger ;) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:17, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::"''Challenge Accepted!'' ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::@Cosmos, if you do read those pages, take them with a grain of salt. They are nothing but a blip of the things that occurred in the last 2 years and don't even begin to reveal the tip of an iceberg. GamerAim's reply is most appropriate for the matter and I hope you can focus on that versus anything else. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I hope this doesn't turn into Manga-style fights! --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:01, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Tsunami Bomb==<br />
<br />
How much "Force" will it take to start a tsunami by a man-made Device? --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 9 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, I'm not a meteorologist. The "butterfly effect" posits that even a small amount of force could create a hurricane. A tsunami could probably be created with a couple megaton bomb.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why would anyone (outside of a villain) want to create a GIANT tidalwave? --Redrum 18:02, 16 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Megatons is bigger than what I had in mind. I was hoping to create something that would take out a couple of coastal goblin "villages"!!!--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:24, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==5e Wedding Crasher==<br />
<br />
My main 5e character has been hired to disrupt a wedding. I have access to a trick box that causes 1d4 fire damage when opened and some itching powder. I may want suggestions for other items (and/or spells). --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 13:05, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==experiment 78==<br />
<br />
Has anyone thought of a mind switching carpet?--Redrum 13:56, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure I understand what kind of item you are talking about... I see it is a carpet, but what is the "mind-switching" part? Not sure what that is supposed to do. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:57, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I think he means when 2 people stand on it (and maybe move around the right way) their minds (and/or souls) switch bodies. --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:49, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Crystal Seer==<br />
<br />
There is nothing that says a crystal ball can't be in the shape of a crystal skull, right?--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right...? Also, I keep seeing you comment on this Talk page, you do know that 1. You can make an account (which I suggest, seeing how often you get on here) and 2. GamerAim isn't exactly quite as active anymore (from what I've seen anyways) and so you might get admin responses faster on the Talk pages of other admins such as Green Dragon, Geodude, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy, or Masmurine. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::63.142.81.74, There is nothing that says crystal balls can't be in the shape of crystal skulls. My question to you is why do you ask? --Redrum 14:51, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Fancy ==<br />
<br />
Hey dude/dudette! You'd shown your "face" a bit and now you been MIA awhile. I hope your kicking some school but and things are good. Cheers GA! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. I'm not happy to see that the background (and indeed, the whole theme) has changed to something...well...not as aesthetically-pleasing. But I'm fine, otherwise.<br />
<br />
:<s>Seriously, the site looks amateurish now. What's up with that? I guess it's a good visual representation of everything I did to improve our reputation going down the drain...</s>--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::the conversation died. I think summer time has made lives busy (?) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 19:25, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quick Note ==<br />
<br />
Turns out, I ''can'' in fact be reasonable and polite when I'm treated with the same respect! As Green Dragon says, I'm not experienced with the atmosphere here on the wiki, or with how things are done here. I'm just far too invested, as usual, and I'm trying to do what I think is right, regardless of what I'm being told to say or do. It's created some... Grating circumstances for a lot of parties, and I only wish things weren't that way... But it's as you've said: people seem to feel positively ''attacked'' that there are deletion requests. I'm aware that humans treat assaults on their world-view as physical attacks, based on psychology, but I wasn't prepared for it in this context! I could have handled things better sooner if I'd only realized that... --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:FWIW, I was sincere. I do appreciate how you've conducted yourself and I am proud to have met/argued with you. Reminds me of the good old days, which I assure you were not as...grating as things can be today. I totally feel you on this, even if I disagree with your stances, and respect that you've taken to heart the things I said, even if you ''also'' don't entirely agree with it on a personal or technical level. Keep it up, my friend <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race)&diff=1181142Talk:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)2019-06-04T21:58:00Z<p>GamerAim: /* Deletion */ Added replies.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Quality Article Nomination==<br />
{{Quality Article Nominee|[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
Okay, barring this being a featured article, it's ''at least'' worthy of being a quality article, assuming I put an image up, no?<br />
<br />
:I anticipated that QAs are pages ready to be dropped into any campaign. If there is a design disclaimer then it needs some examination to see if it suitable. If the detachable head is the thing that DMs need to be careful with, then ''that'' should be a Variant (uh oh, it going to be a variant of a variant) in the same way that the core rulebooks handle variants that use optional rules. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point there Mara. This should ideally be addressed before the nominations continue further. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've had a stab at doing this, although I would also like to rework the actual mechanics of the Cursed variant too. I also moved the Outcast variant to variants, since it's a variant. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Your "stab" has damaged the race considerably. Without the blindsight, the body cannot fight without its head without suffering disadvantage to all attacks, no matter how close to the enemy it is. The race cannot lose its head because it can summon the head to the body, which negates the author-intended use of the head as a risk factor and possible plot point in a module, one-shot, or campaign. The only change you've made that isn't completely out of left field is removing the subrace classifications. The removal, however, doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the race, it's just changing terminology.<br />
::::No, actually, even worse, you've removed any reference to the ''Call Steed'' cantrip created specifically for this race to use, and therefore also removed the intended investment the character should have in a singular creature as their bonded-for-life-steed. You've also removed the ability for the head to rest on the shoulders of the body, which negates the race's ability to blend in with other mortals who might be unfamiliar with the race. One could argue ''that'' is a substantial addition, if they prefer to be recognized immediately, and therefore most likely have a tougher time in RP. Furthermore, I just realized you removed ''all'' mentions of blindsight, not just for the regular version with its head, making the variants completely useless in combat or even navigating their environment. The entire thing is completely chopped up and ruined in this state. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Hi<br />
:::::*I have tried to remove the implication that the body and head are two separate creatures, which is the Design Disclaimer issue that would prevent this from being a QA.<br />
:::::*I removed the blindsight because being able to bypass invisibility, illusions and hiding creatures (even at 10 feet) is very powerful at 1st level.<br />
:::::*"The body" (i.e., you) fights normally since you draw line of sight to your head. You would have disadvantage if you are trying to attack something that is not in the line of sight to your head, which is a fair tradeoff for the versatility of being able to put your head somewhere else.<br />
:::::*Call Steed. This spell is up for deletion, so I tried to find alternatives. Furthermore, I have problems with call steed's balance. A ''cantrip'' that increases a beast's Intelligence to 6 and establishes a telepathic link?<br />
:::::*You can deride the reformatting of the variants if you want but it's something that needed doing.<br />
:::::*I had considered the placing of the head on the shoulders, but I also was interested in what was possible if it wasn't allowed. The rationale of "blending in with other mortals" is a little moot considering the extraordinary appearance of many other player races. In any event this is trivial to add back in.<br />
:::::*I ''already stated'' that I need to look at the cursed variant's mechanics. Maybe it will have blindsight, maybe it won't, please hold off on your complaints until I've actually done this.<br />
:::::Finally, the mantra of wikis is "be bold"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold], since anything can be undone. Good-faith edits should not be shamed with comments like "damaging the race" and "chopped up and ruined". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:47, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Edit: I just read through the Cursed variant and there's nothing saying that you would be blind, so I don't understand the complaint that it doesn't have blindsight. I was careful to state that the variant's features replaced the decapitated trait, so the restriction of "only draw line of sight to your head" does not apply. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having playtested the race myself on more than once occasion... There was no implication that they were separate creatures, just a caveat that certain spells might not affect both unless they were both in range. Blindsight does not pass invisibility, illusions, or hiding creatures unless the creature ''with'' blindsight makes a check (actively attempts to do so), like any other creature would. Bypassing those things is what Truesight is for. One of the main points of the race was to be able to have your head be elsewhere while your body could still fight, which was meant to cover for a wide variety of situations - which it did, in playtest. Being able to instantly recall your head to your body completely negates the majority of the draw and risk of choosing to play the race, which was what made it fun to begin with. Call Steed IS up for deletion, you're right, so I can't argue with wanting to find alternatives; however, it was included to serve the part of the idea where a dullahan was expected (culturally) to bond with a single mount for life and be able to communicate with it much like a real life person can do with a trained animal, hence the increased INT. I can also understand changing the classification of subrace to variant. I find it hard to see the edits as good-faith when the page was requested for deletion, then the template was removed prematurely despite it qualifying for deletion based on policy, and now another user is suddenly interested and attempting to become a primary contributor to block the page's deletion. If you had, for example, created a new race page and used 2nd Variant, as I've seen done before, you could easily make all your desired changes and request that page be QA, and I bet you'd get it because yours would be closer in line to officially published content. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:00, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::*The invisibility condition says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. Blindsight is a special sense. Blindsight also says that you perceive your surroundings without relying on sight. Any obscurement that relies on sight is therefore overcome. <br />
::::::::*You can still play as not being able to summon your head, if you look at the text I added to the Cursed variant.<br />
::::::::*There was no deletion proposal message on the page when I made my edits, so I was unaware that there was a deletion proposal or the reasons for it. Your allegations against me are unfair and I'm sorely tempted to bring it up as a [[Help:Behavioral Policy|civility]] issue. <br />
::::::::*Having said that, I am completely open to starting a new page and putting my version there instead, if there is a concensus for it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I must have been thinking of the below argument about illusions; you're right about the invisibility. Out of combat that might be an issue, but in terms of stopping a surprise attack from an invisible creature, the creature would still technically approach and attack off-turn, surprising you anyway. It would be impossible to become Cursed under your conditions, since you can summon your head, so it would be strange to be without it for ten days unless you were rendered unconscious for that long somehow. I had assumed you would have done your research, and part of that assumption was that you were aware of the huge issue now surrounding Varkarrus' desire to leave the wiki along with the pages they've created. My assumption, then, caused me to mischaracterize your edits as above. Not only would I support the creation of a new page to maintain the integrity of this one, but I would gladly help edit in any way necessary and playtest like I did with this one - without making any claim to the page, in the event you ever wanted it deleted. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::You can't summon your head if you choose the Cursed variant: that whole variant is now for if you want the style of play originally intented.<br />
::::::::::I will petition to Green Dragon that I create a new Dullahan page with all new text/traits and ask him to reconsider the deletion of this page. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Featured Article Nomination==<br />
{{Failed Featured Article Nominee|{{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
I believe this article is worthy of being a featured article. It's got it all: fleshed out and detailed lore, interesting new game mechanics, versatility, balance, fluff, and a nice piece of artwork to round it off. It's been a few weeks since the last major edit, and a full month since the initial concept, too. Maybe it could use a few touchups, and the nomination process really brings out the search for where those can go. Whaddya say, folks? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have failed this nomination after two months of no discussion and no consensus formed. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' Seems pretty shit imo. I don't see how this is a race or a people, maybe a racial class or smth. Like, how they are linked to the Feywild? and how does this plays off or uses any of the actual Dullahan besides the headless horsemen gimmick? You should try giving your "races" more character before submitting for this featured thing or whatever and making such claims in your intro. <br />
:Everyone is entitled to their opinions but telling someone their idea is "pretty shit" & "they should try giving etc" is unacceptable. Please check out [[Help:Behavioral Policy]] or ask questions if this is a problem. I issued an <s>IP</s> block for this, account creation enabled if you wish to register and contribute politely and constructively. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' I've been meaning to give this nomination a review for some time now but its overall unconventionality makes it difficult to formulate the issues with this page and so I've been avoiding it. However, while there are a few more general issues here, I'm more concerned about the significant issue of splitting the PC into two entities and then applying a plethora of tedious rule specifications so that that entity can function. I think that if you have to change how the game functions at a basic level for the sake of one player's homebrew, then that homebrew doesn't eloquently work with the standards of the game. Furthermore, if that you need to read five separate rule specifications for each of your PC's races alone then it applies further workload for the DM and as far as fixing some of the issues with this race, I imagine this list of rule specification will only get bigger and more tiresome. As such, due to the tedious and centrally flawed nature of the race, I will be opposing this nomination until it can be reworked. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:59, 1 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
: Okay, I don't want to sound biased but I think your reasoning for opposing the FA nomination sets a worrying and dangerous precedent. Your reason for opposing this article as FA is the exact same reason why I nominated it in the first place. I very strongly feel that homebrew, whether in D&D, or other games, should break convention! Experimenting with game mechanics is fun and can lead to interesting results! So, sure, the Dullahan requires a few errata (and let's face it, there isn't many and they're easy to remember) to make the disembodied head work... but, if you were playing D&D as a Dullahan, with a competent GM who is easily able to keep track of said errata, wouldn't that be a fun experience with a lot of potential for the kinds of shenanigans that make D&D fun? That's for an experienced super-organized GM though, if the rules are too clunky for more mundane GMs (and I really don't think they are), the fact that the experience would be fun and interesting means that it'd be worth the effort to make it work vs abandoning it entirely. Either way, GMs are under no obligation to allow a homebrew concept even if it's a D&Dwiki featured article, and I feel there's going to need to be a community-wide discussion on how conventional a piece of D&D homebrew needs to be in order to be allowed as a featured article. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:45, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment''' Overall I think this is written well and has the right amount of information a feature article needs. It has things I really like too. Fey, it has flavor and isn't just throwing two creature types on there being all bland. Like, I want to support this article simply because it doesn't do what so many articles with two types did. Lifestyle choice is cool. Different, and interesting. But this kind of sums up my feels on most the traits. Just very unsure of them. Blindsight on the body, I think I get it? But if the body and head have a telepathic bond, I don't think you need Blindsight. Which, in regards to the head/body relationship, there's no limit to how far the head can go? Personally not a fan of this but I can see it being in the realm of "Rule of Cool". The head specifically with its temporary hit points and shared pool with the body is interesting. Again, traits that I'm just unsure of. Temp HP is my fav mechanic right now. I'm not sure how it feel about it here, combined with unconventional AC calculation which it too is another bundle of neat sprinkled with, hmmm different. I'd be more inclined to use normal AC calc for the head, force the player to protect thing as much as possible. Be afraid to not be one unit. With all that, I think its great something different has been presented. It follows right along with 5e philosophy and design to add something new to the game, not just rehash and reuse existing material. For me, it is just a little too different. I don't want to impede the articles success just because my hesitation though. Good luck with the nomination. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Can confirm. There's no limit on how far the head and body can be from each other. Right now, that even extends to other planes. If that's a bit excessive it could be tuned down, but the potential for a dullahan's head to be separated from their body by long distances has lots of potential for stories, and player schemes: sending a dullahan's head to fly down a tunnel to scout ahead without being seen / fly over obstacles that can't be walked over, to deliver messages. Or the dullahan's head could be captured by foes, and the body blindly writes down what the villain is saying... or the reverse; a villain unfamiliar with a dullahan's flying head chained their body but their head is escaping to find help. Even when they aren't separated long distances, the body's blindsight is still useful as even when in a small area, the body can detect foes outside the head's sight or vice-versa. It's true: the Dullahan is an unusual and unique race, but it was because I wanted to explore its head/body mechanic that I created the page, and is the main reason why I feel this page should be a FA. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
::All fair points. I think one other would be a DM would have to figure out what even happens if the two can separate that far because as one example is, the head could be stolen! You've still got a few months though. Maybe there's a way to polish things up so that the traits mirror criteria for variant rules of featured articles. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
'''Support''' I'm not huge into 5e mechanics, so I won't pretend I am by giving a detailed rundown of what's good or bad about this race. It's imaginative, unconventional and well-written all around. Kinda tired of all the FAs being races lately, but at least this one is different, as CL pointed out.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
:OI! \o/ I pointed it out too! How ya gonna forget your pal BigShot?? grrrr >.< /jk <3 [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opposed''' I have looked over this and Varkarrus their previous comments. But I must disagree, a race is not where you break the mold as this is where you break the game easily, subclasses and classes can be very unique races quite simply cannot deviate too much from the norm before becomming overpowered but lets say why this is overpowered. Lets start from the top to bottom. Fey ancestory, sure thats fine and all but be carefull as this is the elf their thing. Now to their second ability, Call steed. First this cantrip is basically useless. The requirements are too much for any usefull use and the mount having to actually travel makes it not very game changing as there are two situations. Either the user is already on the mount, or so far away that this cantrip is not usefull. Outcast however, eh I guess, nothing unique and nothing bad. Now time for the reason why this is op as hell. Blindsight, this wording is just bad, if you dont want it to be actual blindsight just word it that the body can only see 10 feet around it. as the only thing blindsight is is being conciously aware what is around them. Being able to cast spells from both your head and body is just kinda op. I dont how to word this all in such a small text but it just very broken. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 07:27, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I feel like I should mention that the Dullahan race is being tested for balance atm in Cotsu's homebrew testing campaign. I will neither accept nor refute your comments on balance, just wait a bit for the campaign to give feedback on balance. Though, I am fine with rewording the blindsight feature. That said, I should correct your misconception: [[Call Steed (5e Spell)]] isn't "basically useless", it's the ability [[5e SRD:Find Steed]] reworked into a cantrip. It does provide benefits beyond just messaging a bonded steed! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:53, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:: I have checked the wording of the spell, it needs to have been bonded already, if the mount dies it cannot be resummoned and if it is somewhere else it has to physically move troughout the plane instead of being summoned. So yes how it is worded right now, it is borderline unusable. and if it is the find steed worked into the find steed then that is broken and steals the paladin specific spell for anyone to take which is just not fun. Blindsight gives you immunity to all visual illusions and no sneaking up behind them. Racial balance really does not need any playtesting before you can judge the balance of it, if you do need that it shows inexperience (Which is not bad, we all start at some point) some features are very much overpowered to the point it outshines most other races. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 10:50, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::Call Steed and Find Steed both allow for mounted combat as a seamless unit, and allowing the user to target both themselves and their mount with a spell: this is a far more important component to the spell than having the mount arrive instantaneously. Depending on where you keep your mount, it may only be a few rounds away. If you aren't in combat, waiting for your mount to arrive before leaving isn't a big deal either. Also: the Musicus meter provides scoring for blindsight, and keep in mind that the Dullahan only has 10 feet of it, too! The Cursed Dullahan may have 30 ft of blindsight, but they literally cannot see out of that range: a pretty fair trade if you ask me. I don't appreciate the "inexperience" remark, I've been at this for a year now. And, when you make a mold-breaking race like the Dullahan, YES it's going to need playtesting for balance. I also want to point out that WotC have released several mold-breaking races. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::: A year is an extremely short time, I call myself inexperienced still and have played and dmed for almost 7 years. Find steed is a paladin only spell for a reason and should stay this way as it is as icon to the paladin as find familiar to the wizard (and warlock) Call Steed is a worse version, an unneeded one at that. As like said before, either your mount is right below you or too far away to call. A Cantrip that should not exist. I do not care for the musicus meter, blindsight gives immunity to these things, despite only having 10. Based on the mystic, Tremorsense is a first level spell (something weaker then blind or true sight) and true sight a third level spell, making blind sight a second level spell. (Based on its power compared to these other two) and that is for 1 minute. having this permanent is incredibly op, no matter how small Not seeing out that range really does not matter, as either a character plays around that or they dont play this race. And sure, give me one example that actually worked without having the dm have to house rule things --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::I'd just like to reinforce that you should not call other users inexperienced unless they themselves have identified as inexperienced. Doing so can come off as belittling. As for your comment that racial balance does not require playtesting, I think that the developers of D&D 5e themselves would disagree, considering that the game was in development for years. You also say that blind sight is (or should be) a 2nd level spell. So is darkvision, which races have for free. Yes, darkvision lasts much longer, and 1:1 having blind sight as a race might be less "balanced" even at only 10 feet, but there is still some room for a race to have it. At the end of the day, homebrew is not for every table; even first-party content is not for every table, but homebrew has more freedom to try new things. If the DM doesn't want to plan around having a dullahan, he won't allow one in his game. I know we are to refrain from the "only a good DM" fallacy, but the truth is a DM should not allow all content &mdash; homebrew or from first-party supplements &mdash; without reviewing it first. This article has no IRR templates on it, so I don't see why its balance is being questioned solely in regards to its potential as a featured article.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::Just my thoughts. Call stead is a good spell as it prevents you from losing your stead because you had to leave it behind or because some random stole it, although someone could add that you know where the steed is when you cast the cantrip in case it can't get to you. Minor question, with call steed can you say anything else telepathically or only to come. As for blindsight; the fact it lets you ignore illusions and invisibility is a problem for the true dullahan, it is fine with the cursed dullahan because it is blind and possibly deaf (which should be specified) so you can have interesting shenanigans where it can see through the illusion but it does not know that the others are seeing an illusion. With the true dullahan the blindsight on the head is excessive and with the body maybe make it so it still has the blind condition or something? But otherwise I think the class is good, I am looking forward to using this race. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::: I feel it's, again, important to point out that the Blindsight on the True Dullahan extends to just 10 feet. By the time the Dullahan is within 10 feet of an illusion, its likely already too late. Still, I can add that it can't see through illusions; only invisibility and darkness, if you feel like that'd help? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: Even with 10 feet that can tell you if a person you are talking to and want to ambush/kidnap is really there or if they're an illusion, or if one section of a wall is actually not there and a group of minions are about to ambush you, on top it deals with invisibllity. If a DM didn't really use illusions, blindsight wouldn't be a big problem, but if they did it would make some fun things you can do with illusions pointless so saying or just suggesting that illusions affect blindsight would make it perfectly fine. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Musicus Rating==<br />
{{Musicus|6}}<br />
<br />
=== Base ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Fey Ancestry<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Cantrip<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Skill Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 2.5 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== True Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Darkvision<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1(?) || Flying Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Blindsight /10ft<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|str}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || No Food/Water/Air<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Limited Blindsight<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Portable Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== 3 Star Vote ==<br />
<br />
Since the voting is anonymous I'd personally like to provide transparency when I vote and I am guilty of not giving it 5 stars. I explained my thoughts above but if there are more questions why I voted this way, I don't mind sharing. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:16, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm curious as to why, given that the usual logic is "one star is awful, two is below average, three is average or acceptable, four is above average, five is exceptional." I suppose it depends on what your metric is, as well. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Reasons are above in the Featured Article Nomination discussion. I don't really argue with Redhawk's points either. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 21:09, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Having read the above, I certainly would. The fact that some other articles that are lower quality are featured, yet this one is not, baffles me to no end. I will, again, say that it really just depends on what your metric is. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying "this is a matter of preference, and yours clearly isn't the same as mine." --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Well maybe you can explain why this is better than I give credit or better than nameless featured articles. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 07:17, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Gladly. For starters, Call Steed isn't a useless cantrip. Before the update to this race today, it was the only way for the head to reliably find its body again - using the telepathic link with the mount and keeping the body mounted, taking advantage of a saddle, class, or feat that gives advantage to staying mounted. Having the head and body in separate places made for great RP moments when I've used this character in three different one-shots because she fit the setting. The head acting as a scout, or going WITH the scout, and the body relaying simple concepts via hand signs (advance, retreat, danger, be quiet, hold position) made for great tactics.<br />
:::::If an enemy has 15ft or more of movement, the blindsight does not save the body or head, because the enemy would still slip in and attack off-turn, therefore retaining surprise. Blindsight does not see through illusions, which are magical tricks to the brain; that's what TRUEsight is for. All the blindsight did for the character, in any occasion, was allow the body to fight while the head was elsewhere. The use of a glaive for reach allowed the character to fight to the limits of its vision, but move accurately thanks to the mount's vision. Cavalier Fighter, arguably the second-most optimized version of this race, still did not place her above other party members with vanilla races, nor did it make her feel like "the main character" of any one-shot.<br />
:::::The myriad of mechanics involved in this race, and playing it correctly, make it an absolute joy to play. My table has not only NOT found issue with it, even as a Cavalier, but pointed out that an Eldritch Knight that can cast spells and use a bonus action to melee attack would be even more powerful. In fact, one of my DMs even buffed her so she would be effective, saying that the mount should gain HP with her, and that the two could take hits for one another - effectively acting almost as a druid's Wild Shape temporary hit points. At the end of all calculation, this meant she had 244 HP (max CON and Tough at Lv20) + 183 for the horse (31+8x19) for 427HP. My Totem Barbarian has an effective HP of 325x2= 650HP (24CON, Tough, Totem damage resist plus a ring to resist psychic damage). Their damage per turn is about the same (four glaive swings or two maul swings with rage bonus), both can tank by imposing disadvantage or granting enemies advantage to goad hits.<br />
:::::I've played the race several times, run the math several times, and both in theory and practice, everything has meshed together exactly as it seems it was intended. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I did read all this and go over my original thoughts awhile ago. I changed my vote to a four. There's aspects I am still not sold on but I can concede it is better than a 3. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 06:59, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletion ==<br />
'''Support''' There is no reason this page cannot be deleted as per the previous requested based on wiki policy. There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request. The request template was also removed prior to the 14 days listed for discussion to occur. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1049612&oldid=1049590 diff] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1068474&oldid=1054068 diff]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::First, your citations only point to grammatical help, which hardly constitutes as someone (in this case an admin) becoming a "primary contributor" unless you ''really'' reach on your definition. No extra substance was added to the idea in question, no history, no culture, no new features, etc.<br />
::Second, because administration failed to honor a valid request for deletion and removed the deletion template prematurely, there's now another user who is beginning to edit the page. As of right now, the only thing they've managed to do is reword one of the main features of the race which, I would argue, was both unnecessary and removes one of the author intended uses of the race: a search for their stolen head. As a matter of fact, if I am pressed, I can easily sight the author's own words on the matter to prove such was the intention, which therefore makes that a violation of editing policy as written. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:07, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I'm sorry, ''what'' was a violation of editing policy? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:56, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::: I think what Max is trying to say is that he feels authorial intent is being disregarded, from my conversation with him on Discord and his comments above, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or coarse. I will agree with Geodude that I guess I should have chosen my words better, but he's also right about his interpretation of my statement. This is why I don't like the posh talk - makes it kinda tough to figure out what people're saying. As long as there's no swearing, I could probably just start typing more normally and be misunderstood less. Think I'm gonna do that. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Support''' I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contrubtions (with the intent of creating a new Dullahan page with new text and my rewritten traits). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removing the flying speed, and making the traits usable is wholly a significant contribution for this race. Not only that but numerous bits of advice on the talk page also shaped this race. However, let's let consensus sort this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Based on the talk surrounding the FA nomination above, and based on my own playtesting on three occasions, the race was perfectly usable in the state it was in. Everything worked as intended, and the table enjoyed the experience, even going as far as to request I play the character the third time. Were there any points on the talk page that ended up being implemented into the race? And, further, the topic of grammatical help or minor tweaks to numbers has been covered above as well. Was there another point to discuss to reach consensus? I had fallen under the impression that it had been established, aside from hearing ConcealedLight's opinion on the matter, or EpicBoss' opinion, as they were the other two who changed wording for clarity. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:A version of the article can return upon its deletion, for one thing. For another, the length of time an article has existed seems a tad irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted by request from the sole significant contributor. Even further, the author has offered to create a back-up .pdf version by request, so it's not as though the content will disappear for good - in this state or in one that follows the conventions and guidelines of this wiki. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I am, and always have been, opposed to this section of the deletion policy. a) if the article can be restored upon deletion, deletion is a waste of time; b) D&D Wiki would be all the lesser without this article, so its deletion is detrimental to the users and the health of the website; c) saving it as a .pdf (or on a user-page) does not allow users to find it on dynamic page lists, so users cannot find it, and point b is invoked.<br />
::I feel for Vark and I understand she is upset, but I will never personally support - whether GD allows it or not - the right of users to take away things that they willingly and knowingly gave to the community. Arbitrary deletion of valuable content defeats the purpose of preserving homebrew.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I can't really agree that it's arbitrary given the context. Restoring the page after deletion has a lot of important implications, including removing the original author's name from subsequent versions. If the wiki would be lesser without it, despite the ability to recreate it in spirit, then that seems to imply to me that, perhaps, the author/creator's work deserves more respect than it's been shown, especially recently. If it is, in fact, shown that respect, it would be deleted as the author requested. If she wants to leave the playground and take her toys with her, the fact that it's someone else's favorite doesn't change that it's hers. This race happens to be my single favorite page on the entire wiki; I completely understand how you feel, in my own way! But at the end of the day, it ''should'' be a creator's right to retract their creations if they feel they aren't being respected. A painter can remove their work from a gallery if it is mocked or defaced; I see this in a similar fashion. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1) I understand that Vark has had issues with the community, but I still consider all deletion requests based on personal reason to be arbitrary, regardless of whether they can or will be enforced by the administration.<br />
::::2) Legally-speaking, reposting the article without attribution would be, well, illegal unless Varkarrus declared the content to be free of copyright in accordance with U.S. copyright law. In other words, any reposting would still retain her name or else have to be deleted for copyright violation.<br />
::::3) I agree that Vark's work deserves more respect, and when I was more active, I even championed this. If you look above at my support for the Featured Article Nomination, is it any surprise I wish to keep this article around? :)<br />
::::4) The thing is, she's not leaving with HER toys. It is more akin to a painter donating a work to an art gallery. Sure, it's sad to see it defaced, but you GAVE IT AWAY. Please see my more detailed response on the deletion policy talk page. Vark was herself involved enough in the community to have known for a good long time that she did not have total creative or distributive control over "her" content. D&D Wiki is not - in spirit or in practice - an art gallery in the way that you describe, even if certain policies were - against my suggestion - enforced to give some more control to authors. In spite of those policies, it is helpful to come to D&D Wiki with a preference for "ours" over "mine" :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:40, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Basically if you release works under a copyleft license or make it public domain, it is irrevocable, you have no right to change your mind later. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:46, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having seen your post in the deletion policy page, I have to agree, once again. However, it is important to clarify my earlier statements, since there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that the page simply be reposted; until just recently, another user was making strides to completely rework the page to more closely follow convention and to remove many of the features users found of questionable balance. What I'm suggesting is the removal of this page, as per the request of the author and sole significant contributor, per deletion policy - and then a new page to be created in the spirit of the old, as re-imagined by other users to follow the guidelines of this wiki. I certainly did see your above comments, and I appreciate the discourse now as well.<br />
::::::Ultimately, however, I can't agree that every case can or should be "ours" over "mine." If a user creates a page, contributes many hours of their time and tens of thousands of bytes to it, then someone else just rewords it a bit to sound more professional, that reminds me of an editor to a book. The editor does not suddenly own the idea because they removed a few orphans and changed some words, and if the author wanted their book removed from shelves, the editor wouldn't have a say. What an editor does is invaluable work, absolutely, but if the core idea remains untouched, as it should, it remains the brain-child of its creator, and a part of that person, in a way. It's for this reason, my logic surrounding this discussion and motivating my fervor in it, that I continue to support the deletion of several pages.<br />
::::::After Mara's ninja (lol), I also need to add that I completely understand that, and the license isn't being revoked because of this. D&D Wiki still owns the rights to the reproduction of the page, which is a point I missed when replying, and the version hosted here. If the page is deleted, I don't believe that changes, unfortunately, unless there's wording that would invalidate the license once the work disappeared... Which would turn out to be yet another reason for me to support these deletions. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I agree with you, again, that it's unfortunate that this article will likely be sanitized to appeal to the personal preferences of other users without Vark here to defend it. I try to strike a balance between siding with authors, and I always believed that many changes desired of this article violated the spirit of the article and intention of the author (Vark). I've made the case many times that, just because the article violates convention, does not mean that it is wrong for doing so. Variant articles that wish for radically-different interpretations of this race should be created wholesale. So, again, I agree that it's sad, but these are two separate issues and once that am willing to fight separately if need-be :(<br />
:::::::Furthermore, Vark herself may have written up tens of thousands of bytes worth of content, but those bytes were D&D Wiki's, not hers. If she wished to maintain total control over her content, she could have hosted it on her own website or a blog that had its own policies concerning user ownership of content. I will concede that editorial edits should not - and do not - constitute sufficient modification of the content to nullify the invoked deletion clause as written. But I do not oppose the deletion on "legal" grounds, but instead intend to make an impassioned argument as to why the article should stay.<br />
:::::::I believe this to be the cause of the confusion, as you are arguing that the page can ''technically'' be deleted because the non-Vark edits were all editorial and therefore the article is "hers" in regards to the deletion clause. To use your book analogy, D&D Wiki is the publisher, not the editor, and Vark is seeking to violate a contract and have her book pulled from shelves against the will - and rights - of the publisher to which she signed over distributive rights. For a real-world example (if I'm not mistaken), George Lucas gave 20th Century Fox perpetual distribution rights for the original Star Wars. George Lucas could not have then decided that, because he didn't like Fox, he should have full distribution rights.<br />
:::::::Of course my comparison to Star Wars falls apart in both that D&D Wiki as a website does not control distribution, but that anyone who adheres to the GNU FDL 1.3 ''can'' '''and''', as per the cause of our disagreement, that Vark was technically ''given'' the right to control distribution on this site. Come to think of it, if someone else did re-upload the content, could the clause still be invoked since Vark is still "primary author" in absolute terms of original idea and content contributed to the work? But I digress.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't think this was arguing with me, but the GNU FDL still requires attribution, does it not? I could be wrong - it's been awhile since I acted as legal adviser here - but that was my understanding that we'd have to attribute Vark, regardless. Of course, you may also have a point that Vark cannot release the edits of others under public domain, just her own, which could theoretically complicate matters of absolving attribution.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Deletion_Policy&diff=1181132Help talk:Deletion Policy2019-06-04T21:35:55Z<p>GamerAim: /* "Good Faith" */ Added a reply. Good on ya, Max, for being so polite considering the circumstances <3</p>
<hr />
<div>I know you said "be bold" but I'd rather keep the writing style consistent, if you don't mind making a few changes?<br />
<br />
#'''Sole contributor requests deletion.''' Please make it clear that this only applies to insubstantial articles, i.e. articles which were blanked shortly after creation and which do not qualify as "usable" articles. We do not delete articles simply by user request, as this could be deleterious to the people who use the site. This is one of the causes of a split that occurred among staff years ago :(<br />
#'''Speedy Deletion.''' I believe that [[Template:needsadmin]] is typically used to call out a need for speedy deletion, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Just something worth considering :)<br />
#'''Not English.''' I do recall that, under specific circumstances, non-English pages are allowed. I think the context was that a non-English campaign setting is allowed?<br />
--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You're right. It might be for the best that changes this bold weren't made without a discussion.<br />
:#I would like another opinion on this before adding it in and/or making this policy official. In my own time, I've seen several substantial articles deleted solely due to "Speedy deletion criteria G7" and "author request," and only one or two instances where this was denied. (Iirc at least one of those instances ended in nothing but a furious user and the retention of content that needed improvement, anyway. Doesn't seem to me like that goes well, but I could be wrong.)<br />
:#It is and can be, but even before I became an admin it was apparent to me that direct notification gathers a response more swiftly than that template. If you want it can be added in, but even if it follows precedent I don't really see it being as effective.<br />
:#To me this seems rather dubious. I would like another opinion covering this explicitly before adding it in. Do you know what campaign setting(s) to which this applied? Do you remember who else might have been involved in the instance(s) where a non-English campaign setting was allowed?<br />
:- [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"G7" should only be invoked in the case of incomplete articles, and maybe only shortly after creation (not sure about that last part). Completed articles should never be deleted under "G7." I don't think I wrote that clearly the first time, but either way GD can confirm this whenever he responds. I was referring to the needsadmin template as being used in place of the delete template, not suggesting that it's improper to ask on the Admin talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but again I don't think it really ''matters'' which template is used to summon a speedy deletion, just saying which one I've seen used for it most often. GD himself allowed the campaign setting to remain, as I recall, but I think it was subsequently deleted for normal reasons. If GD thinks it's a good idea, we could put a note saying to ask him for permission before adding non-English content. Otherwise, I'm fine with continuing our official English-only stance with no written exceptions.<br />
<br />
::I'm mostly sharing my experience with policy here, not any personal opinion of mine, though I do feel strongly about not deleting good content just because OP wants it removed. So long as GD clears up these points, I can't think of any major issues I have with your proposal. I apologize if I came off as dismissive of it just because I only shared suggested corrections!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:01, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::#I agree with GA here.<br />
::#I agree with Guy here that it doesn't seem all that effective. If anything its a preference but not a hard rule.<br />
::#I was involved in that. If I recall correctly, I asked GD about it when I happened upon a largely incomplete setting in Spanish(I believe) and it was deleted. I'm unsure about the name but I believe it was on his talk page.<br />
:::Other then that, this is well written and seems pretty comprehensive. I have no qualms about making this policy atm. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think this is pretty awesomely written, top notch. I've made three tiny additions that I'm hoping aren't controversial, but please anyone speak up or edit them constructively if so.<br />
::::Non-English campaign settings / OGL content are allowed (though, we've historically had a higher required standard of quality for them); We semi-recently deleted a [[Serpia (5e Campaign Setting)|foreign campaign setting]], but this decision was made because of the incompletion and poor quality. I do agree with GamerAim on their points, too, we should be discouraging the use of G7 best we can, within reason. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As it appears to be consensus, I've downplayed "G7." It now should read that it ''allows'' an administrator to speedily delete for this reason, but makes it apparent (hopefully) that this alone shouldn't constitute deletion of quality content.<br />
:::::The part about non-English content was reworked to not apply if a translation is included. In practice, any content not in English at all could effectively be immune to all the other reasons for deletion, just because it's very possible no active users of D&D Wiki may be able understand it. To me seems ''potentially'' very problematic, especially if it's in a language more esoteric than Spanish. If this still isn't lenient enough, I suppose the line can be deleted entirely.<br />
:::::GD's edit summary suggests he's already given this approval, though knowing he's busy it might've been a quick skim that missed finer bits like those brought up here. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm happy enough with this policy and all the latest editions, thus far. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:19, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you remember the articles you mentioned being deleted, would you please restore them? I remembered a specific example, and as per [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kaleid_Ooze_%283.5e_Creature%29&type=revision&diff=554355&oldid=554287 here] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&direction=next&oldid=556054#Please_remove_all_my_material_from_this_Wiki here], users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want it uploaded here anymore. I hope this clarifies things :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:03, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It is worth noting that in the six year period that has passed since the precedents you are citing, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent {{dash}} although clearly precedent differs, which is part of the reason I worked on this. Are you suggesting the '''author request''' portion again be changed?<br />
::::Oh. I fear I now understand why you edited that portion of this (still unofficial) policy. I assume every single time you see a page deleted by author request, you intend to "disagree" with that deletion?<br />
::::... Hopefully I'm jumping to false conclusions, but, I can't help but find that possibility very disappointing. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:45, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As stated elsewhere, it has been solid and longstanding policy not to delete work by author request unless it's unplayable anyway, been around a very short time, or otherwise exceptional circumstances. I don't care to go hunting for ye olde talk page that is miles long with argument over this policy, but the end state is - Nobody owns the work that is posted to D&D Wiki, and we rarely grant the optional courtesy of removing that work just because the author asked for it. Unless [[User:Green Dragon]] has had a major change of heart on this matter (in which case, we should discuss further), the policy should reflect this. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::And please don't passively berate people for making valid contributions to policy; GamerAim is trying to reflect and vocalise the longstanding position this wiki has very strongly held. Speculation and declaring your disappointment over imagined acts doesn't help anybody. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::To be clear, I'm only enforcing long-standing policy as SgtLion said. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and if discussion with GD decides that we should enforce user ownership on D&D Wiki, I will enforce our new policy. My only intent thus far is to educate newer and less-informed administrators (and other users) on our established procedures, not to enforce my own "interpretation" of policy based on a single edit from years before I even joined. The recent shift to improving our codification of policy is, well, recent. Older admins - even myself, a relatively newer admin - tended to have this understanding of the spirit and intent, policy and history of D&D Wiki. I'm not knocking any of the newer admins who came to D&D Wiki with beliefs that greatly differ from those D&D Wiki was founded on. I'm just saying that this is why many policies are buried away in old talk page discussions because we didn't always write down our consensus after it was reached.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I believe I was the first admin to start citing G7 on this wiki, although I admit I do not recall the context. It may have been a case where the author realized they did not want to release the content under GFDL. It can be a useful procedure for uncontroversial dispute resolution, and also those cases where a user makes an incomplete page then blanks it.<br />
::::::: Now, about these situations where there are old articles (perhaps very good ones) with a user request for deletion. I know historically we have not wanted to let go of these pages, and strictly these pages are not "owned" by the author. This part of G7 is about behaving with good faith, perhaps we should be respecting these users wishes. From a Wikipedia point of view, it's not a deletion process that should even go through a discussion. Having said that, G7 is ''very fragile'' - all it takes is another user to make a non-trivial edit and G7 is invalidated.--{{unsigned|Marasmusine}}<br />
<br />
::::::::Indeed you were, as I remember. I think all the points you present are valid. I do vaguely remember Green Dragon taking a specific strong stance on this that is in-line with what you've said. When I can find the relevant discussion page, or they get a moment to specify again, we can probably be clearer on the matter. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the discussion I was thinking of was [[User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages]], where actually Marasmusine was more involved than I. Though this was a time when courteous spirit played a bigger part than hard policy, so it's hard to imagine the same process going so smoothly anymore. As such, and due to conflicting precedents, I don't mind us going any which way on this policy, it seems whatever works, just as long as we make it clear. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 01:30, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::Looking at that discussion, it seems Green Dragon's concern is that we would be setting a precedent of breaking protocol to meet a user's demands; or starting a slippery slope of deleting things willy-nilly. It's because of the TierArea incident that I started using Wikipedia's speedy deletion critiera to show there is a framework for this. In the same way, we don't have to use the two-week deletion process for a page that just says "LOLOLOL" (criteria G3), unused redirects (criteria G6), material under copyright (G12), or the all too frequent "empty-but-the-template" pages (A3).<br />
:::::::::As for misusing the deletion tool, the point of being an admin is that they can be trusted to use their judgement to make exceptions when it betters the wiki. If there's a pattern of misuse, it's back to RfA with you :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, can we agree to put this policy as written into effect? I think the current wording of 'user request' sufficiently balances that we are under no obligation to delete articles under sole contributor request, but can where judgment allows. <br />
:Or do we want to adjust a clause to say that G7 is not valid where is likely to be controversial, or for substantial content (such as the deletion of featured articles or entire campaign settings)?<br />
:Either way, these few sentences seem to be the only part of contention; If it is, can we just exclude that section 'til we agree on it? I'm still seeing admins implementing deletions improperly as I type, so it'd be nice to a have a super clear policy to point to so we can all be on the same page. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 09:37, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I think the current version could be implemented, yes. As you stated, G7 is the only point of contention, it seems like, so I'll comment that part out and then move this into the Help namespace. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This discussion shows me how important it is to have this policy. Everyone has different perspectives about how to delete pages. If it's not written down, it leads to some very heated situations. But, in recollection, it has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page.<br />
:::I am grateful to work with a written down policy about page deletions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I am also grateful; your suggestion to codify our deletion policy after years of informal changes was a good one :) So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion now? An article can be deleted solely for that reason? I've no issue with this, as it seems your stance has changed over the years, but I worded it that way to be doubly sure before we write this in stone! If this is indeed the case, we should also go forward with deleting the Meadowlands campaign setting (again)?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::When I used the word "always" above, simply, I meant to use that word. I have never denied a deletion by authors request except for speedy deletions and deletions of licensing problems (which is in the best interests of D&D Wiki). I don't understand why users want their content to be deleted occasionally (it seems like a waste of their work), and my stance on this has not changed either. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::It was a yes or no question. Please say "yes" or "no" to "So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion?"--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yes, currently (and always) that is a valid reason for deletion. Note: '''sole''' contributor, not '''main''' contributor. We likely need more input from more users if we are to change this policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've been operating under the mentality of Wikipedia's CSD G7, which lets pages be deleted speedily upon request of the sole ''significant'' contributor. I take this to mean that a page's creator can request deletion even if another user has made edits like fixing grammar or formatting issues, adding/changing/removing categories, or other minor edits (minor in scope, not necessarily only edits marked as "minor"). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:14, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Thank you! If no one else does so first, I will make sure the wording on this page reflects that articles can be proposed and deleted for that reason. I will also make it clear that they cannot be speedy deleted for that reason under Wikipedia G7. I think Geodude is also right to ask if minor edits from other users void this deletion reason. I assume so, but clarity is always appreciated.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::"Sole ''significant'' contributor" makes more sense for the policy than just "sole contributor" since that does not explicitly state the interactions about maintenance and minor edits. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I-I think this means we've finally all agreed on and codified our deletion policy, speedy deletes and all. Do we celebrate now? This was a collaborative effort between many administrators and other users and I am pleased to have been a part of it \o/ --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:19, 11 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Should we be able to speedily delete pages with no content whatsoever? I'm not talking about pages which are simply sparse; I'm talking about pages like [[Hacker]] and [[Aequor de Chao]] which contain virtually no content at all. I'm mainly comparing this to Wikipedia's CSDs A1 and A3. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:58, 20 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I consider that a reasonable proposal. If no one objects, go ahead and make the appropriate changes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Seems fine to me too. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:10, 22 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It's been a few days and no one objected so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, here we go. Based on the discussion here and [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages here], as well as all the reading I've done and all the back and forth across the wiki recently, I'm just going to go ahead and outline all my arguments as simply as possible in an effort to just get this whole thing over with. I'm going to be blunt, but I'd like to say up front that I have no ill intent or desire to be rude or disrespectful. As I've said in my own user page and several other places, I consider you all my seniors in these matters and in tabletop, and I'd also like to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I'll number my points and try to be as organized as possible regarding this so people can respond easily. There needs to be discussion; talking through a problem is how it gets resolved.<br />
:1) Let me start by saying, right away, that this business of speaking entirely through text has been very messy. It's incredibly difficult to tell, especially when people speak in such a high-brow manner (as I am now, because of the atmosphere and perceived standard of discourse), someone's disposition. I would like to think I've simply been misinterpreting how admins feel, but my current perception is that Green Dragon, ConcealedLight, and ConcealedWife think users like myself or Varkarrus are peons not worth talking to or listening to, and our opinions, arguments, and emotions mean nothing, logical or not. There seems to be a great deal of bias being thrown around, and after Geodude told me that this wiki does not operate strictly according to written policy, like a bureaucracy would, my fear as only deepened in this regard. I don't want to remain in an environment where I feel as though my role is to not ask questions and pump out content that will then go on to not be respected, because that's exactly what seems to be developing here.<br />
:2) Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor. I can see there was some discussion about whether grammar or balance help was a significant contribution, but the fact that the term is undefined means that any admin can interpret it on a case by case basis and use the term to exercise power for power's sake. I would argue that this has happened on [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages, where there seems to be perceived value to the wiki in holding the work hostage by using ambiguous wording in policy and baseless personal desire to override goodwill and reason. The logical solution for the latter two pages would have been to honor the deletion request and simply recreate them with a new author, balanced and done as admin and other users seem to desire. Instead, both pages have been altered against authorial intent (which goes against the spirit and letter of the editing policy), and are being argued over and defended as if a little goblin has tried to steal gold from a dragon's hoard.<br />
:3) I'm concerned that it's possible for a user, regardless of rank or status, to swoop in when an article has been requested for deletion - not abandoned or purposefully put up for adoption - and begin editing it and cutting it up in an attempt to become a significant contributor to block the deletion request. It comes off as either petty or as a coordinated behind-the-scenes effort to hold a page hostage, and it's positively abhorrent that it's allowed or possible at all. In such a case where users are invested in such content, the logical solution, again, would have been to simply delete the page and start anew with a new author and a more collaborative effort based on the work of the previous author. Inspired works like that are created all the time, after all, and the license this wiki uses gives it that kind of wiggle room. (As an added note, there is no point during account creation until preparing to hit the "save changes" button where the license is presented. Even then, it is a tiny footnote, practically an after-thought, and nowhere is a user required to agree to the license in order to sign up or edit anonymously. Based on existing court cases involving places like Wikipedia, and precedents set, that puts this wiki on very thin legal ice.)<br />
:4) Finally, I would like to ask that there be an addition of some kind of definition for "significant" contributions and the like. If a page is comprised of the edits from the author to the tune of tens of thousands of bytes, and other community members have only fixed some grammar or changed a number or two, adding up to bytes numbering in the tens to low hundreds, I hardly see how that's grounds for calling them primary contributors on par with the author. Instead, it would make perfect sense if other users had helped define the page's flavor text, such as adding history to a race when the author had none, or adding new features or traits, etc. If such things were discussed in the talk page and the additions were made by the author, but the changes were discussed by multiple users and it was just the author who happened to be the one to update the page, that, too, would make sense to call a collaborative effort. The latter two pages I've linked do not fall under those cases - or didn't until this morning, which I've previously addressed.<br />
:I'm a creator here as well, just like Varkarrus. The volume of my created pages pales in comparison, but the fact remains that these rules affect me as well. As of yet, I haven't added anything to the wiki that either isn't already copyrighted material (submitted under Fair Use, of course), or that I'm extremely attached to as an original creation. That is not the case for Varkarrus, as I understand it. This wiki ended up being a great platform for organizing, editing, and publicizing original works, as well as those inspired by Wizards of the Coast content or folklore. The fact that such works are effectively being held down for no other reason than not wanting to let them go, or not wanting to do the work to recreate them in spiritual successor pages, baffles me to no end, and stifles any desire I had to become a part of this community and work with others to create collaborative and original content on the platform.<br />
:The behavior I've seen jump out of nowhere, which I am only invested in because I was invested in the content of pages that were requested to be deleted, has spiraled into discussions that are going nowhere, and reprehensible behavior on all sides. I know a lot of people can't believe someone would put this much effort into something solely for a thankless task for the sake of someone else, so I cite that I'm a creator with self-interest in the precedents set in this matter to ease such people's suspicions. I doubt that will be enough. <br />
:I've provided as much context and as many arguments as I can think of at the moment, but the fact is that I am mentally and emotionally fried after trying to fight this. I've been constantly angry for almost 48 hours, at what I see as great injustice at the hands of people in power who don't appear to care about the effect their actions are having on others, and it's not healthy for me. Since being objective and logical clearly isn't the only welcome talk on this wiki given the actions of other users recently, I feel like that is also important context. I can only hope that my tone in this message hasn't come across as angry; I'm tired, sad, exasperated, and concerned, but this is the only thing I can think to do to try and pull the discussion to one relevant location and try to talk about it as calmly and openly as possible. As the entire thing hinges on deletion requests and policy, this seemed to be the best place for it.<br />
:Please, I hope we can have a discussion about this and be rational. I want to see goodwill shown, not contempt or frustration, on my part or anyone else's. I just want this to end so I can stop talking about it, stop watching all these pages, and finally step away. It's just not in me to let it go until it's been resolved, and I can't consider something resolved if either or both parties simply square their shoulders, plant their feet, and refuse to change their minds or accept that they might be wrong about something. If I've misunderstood policy, or misinterpreted actions of other users - if I'm demonstrably wrong, I want to know so I can move on. I'd like to think everyone else here is the same. I look forward to working with you all in this matter. {{Unsigned|Max7238}}<br />
<br />
::In light of recent events, I agree that there should be added a better definition for "significant contribution" as it relates to this policy. I've already seen several users (including at least one admin) deliberately abuse this wording for what was obviously not the intent. I would seek to not let that happen again.<br />
::That said, I fear consensus on what constitutes a significant contribution would be difficult to reach. Even if consensus was reached, chances to me seem high that would be ignored by two or more admins. Even so, at the very least, I would have assumed most of us would agree that "significant contributions" do not include (1) any number of edits deliberately marked as a minor edit or (2) any amount of formatting/spellchecking that doesn't actually change the game effects or story elements of the content. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 15:52, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really wish I had more time but before it’s too late I wanted to say thanks for posting somewhere that brings it all together. I also cannot disagree with Guy. For the most part Max either but not here to argue Max. I also want to point out the shame of Vark’s work being unrecognized except for half a dozen pieces until Vark decided enough was enough and wanted to pull their Vark. Now it’s like a mad dash to edit each page. Where the gosh darn bleeping bleeping bleep was everyone the entire time she’s been a user in this wiki and only got feedback if it I was a race (because CL touches them all) or a FAN? I am flabbergasted by the behavior. It really makes it hard to believe the wiki deletion is being used in good faith by the wiki itself. Any how, only a couple hours a day of free WiFi to even log on for this. Cheers! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 20:42, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have two points to make. Firstly, we are also forgetting that this is supposed to be a ''speedy'' deletion. If we make it a 2 week thing, it leaves it open for someone to come in and make a big edit, nullifying the deletion rationale. If the page qualifies, it needs to be deleted ''straight away''. <br />
::::Secondly, the G7 proposal has to be made in good faith. Here are examples of G7 rationales (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion]): <br />
::::*"You're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content"<br />
::::*"you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with."<br />
::::*"you just screwed up and created a page with a title like User:User:Example"<br />
::::To this I also add:<br />
::::*You're making a page and learn that the site's license isn't appropriate for you (e.g. you wish to retain copyright).<br />
::::Asking for your page to be deleted out of spite because you've had some falling out with another user is ''not'' in good faith and is not a G7 rationale.<br />
::::Finally, I will add that it's Green Dragon's site and he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't deleted, regardless of guidelines. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's "supposed to be a speedy deletion"? According to our policy as currently written, "request of sole significant contributor" is the 2-week thing, [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help:Deletion_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=1092641 or as GamerAim put it, "the CfD process."]<br />
:::::Marasmusine, you are referencing Wikipedia's criteria again. This policy page itself was written so we don't rely on Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia's policy is designed for an encyclopedia of undisputed facts, not for original creative writing. We don't have G7. We have our own deletion policy, which was written and readjusted (and re-re-adjusted) over the course of months by several prominent users. <s>It would be nice if the page wasn't locked so I could correct some of the minor problems introduced through all these readjustments but that's beside the point.</s> If sole-significant should in fact be speedy deletion instead of the 2-week thing, then this policy should be edited to portray that instead of contradicting it.<br />
:::::If "good faith" is a requirement for "request of sole significant contributor," then that should be added to our policy as well. I am not sure if I agree with that personally. 'Good faith' seems extremely ambiguous when it comes to original creations, and too much ambiguity seems like it's part of the problem right now. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::First and foremost, if Green Dragon is the "ultimate arbiter" of what is done, regardless of any policy whatsoever, then why is there policy written at all? If it's a space for ''anyone'' to just do whatever they want, I'm ''pretty'' sure that should just be explicitly stated, and done so upon account creation or trying to edit the wiki at all. I'm also ''positive'' that I'll never create another page on this wiki, and that I'm about done editing anything but talk pages.<br />
::::::Second, can someone please direct the rest of admin to this page, so we can hear from them? ConcealedWife is having a field day with one of the pages, now, too. I could understand a user, or an IP, doing something like this, but if I'm expected to believe that what amounts to the staff of the wiki are allowed to conduct themselves in this way and not have it raise every red flag in the book, it would go a long way in convincing me that policy is indeed moot, and that this is simply Green Dragon's domain to do with as he sees fit... Including appoint friends to do as they see fit, so long as the only toes they step on don't belong to him.<br />
::::::Third, I was told to sit by and wait, and only respond if everyone else did first, but this is all just too much to watch. BigShot made an excellent point; you can just look at the history of some of these pages and plainly see that until Varkarrus wanted them gone, almost no one cared. Now there's uproar among a very small crowd to "save the pages?" Or do what, exactly? Why else would people, especially administration, suddenly pop out of the woodwork to start mass edits of a page that one of the users they're supposed to help protect requested to be deleted? After the behavior in the Discord, which I was told repeatedly is unofficial, despite being created and run by the same people, under the same name as this website, where I saw incredible amounts of contempt and disrespect being thrown around, seeing this illustrates perfectly that this wiki is not the environment to remain in if one is a creator in any capacity. Unfortunately, I can't request that my own pages be deleted, because then I'd receive the same treatment!<br />
::::::Finally, it's too late to rewrite policy for this. I'm sure it will only change after the fact, if it does at all. As written, right now, it can easily be interpreted to not only ''allow'' this behavior, but encourage it. And, based on the behavior I'm seeing, that makes a select group of people very happy to swing it like a cudgel at anyone in the way of them doing as they please. It's impossible to have a discussion about any of this, any of what's going on, and not sound disrespectful or "uncivil," but I can promise you I'm doing my best while being more angry and frustrated than I've been in months - or years. As policy stands, and as long as the aforementioned actions continue, I can think nothing else of this entire site but "get out as soon as possible."<br />
::::::When this is all over, regardless of the conclusion, you'll never see me active on this wiki again. I'm sure that will ''also'' make some people very happy - others maybe not - but I'm not even going to go as far as requesting my works be deleted for any reason. My pages here are either already copyrighted material, submitted under fair use, or cool ideas I had that I wanted to show to friends and thought the public might like. I'm nobody on this wiki, so I guess being blown off shouldn't surprise me. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 08:40, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Then this shows why "user requests deletion" ''should'' be a speedy criteria per how Wikipedia handles it. It either meets the uncontroversial criteria for deletion, or it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be deleted (as the author has published it under the free document license). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I've moved our replies to [[#Speedy deletion for author requests]], so as not to detract from the other points brought up by Max7238. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have a policy, that puts our work behind our actions. Saying that an admin really cares about a page so much as to circumvent policy is not what is happening. As admins we should not blindly trust users, so going through a list of pages to see if they match our deletion policy is not only impartial, it's also necessary. It's apparent that you have very little experience in situations like this, and your wish to never submit anything to D&D Wiki only makes me question your expertise more, and if you are really the right person to get ideas from. It's beneficial for us to work with users who have hurdled over even the toughest of situations, and not users without experience but some ideas. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Let me start by saying that I answered in the section below first. With that out of the way, I next need to say that I call em as I see em, and actions speak a lot louder than words. I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality. That quality did not always come from collaborative work. I already cited the relevant pages where, obviously, it became a collaboration and those pages should remain. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of her created pages are, or were, being edited like mad in what seemed to be clear cases of bad faith. One user had simply not seen the discussion and started edits, and I've already cleared that up in your absence. Another user completely threw out authorial intent, and went so far as to state in edit messages that they would pretty much completely rewrite a page, which had little purpose other than ousting the original author as the SSC.<br />
::::::::::I ''don't'' want to submit here anymore. Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat ''maybe'' twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::::::::::You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to. I'm a user of the wiki. I've been lurking for the better part of two years. I've got a degree in law, I specifically went out of my way to study digital law, cyber security, social inequality, and sociology (down to specifics like globalization) for my electives. I'm not here for some faceless entity over the internet to question who and what I am, because the fact is that it doesn't change the argument. It doesn't change that policy as written is flawed and rife with opportunity for abuse - abuse that has been occurring these past few days. If that policy does not change, then no, I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun. There's no point in getting invested in anything I post on this wiki that isn't being submitted under Fair Use, because the instant it's here, based on your actions and the actions of other admin, it's yours now. Even following the spirit of policy rather than the letter, only the Maralith and Lich pages should remain. That we're having this discussion at ''all'' should be plenty of evidence that there's a problem. It wouldn't go on this long if there wasn't!<br />
::::::::::It's beneficial for you to work with people who give a care. It's beneficial for a public resource like this to harness the potential of those who pass through it. It's beneficial for this wiki to welcome creativity and ''respect'' it. That's not being done right now. I care too much about everything, and I know that. I have a great deal of potential to ''help'' you (and you all, because written English is weird), and I want to. And creativity is ''not'' being welcomed or respected as long as it's within the realm of possibility for this discussion to occur. You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website." As it stands, it's now plain to see that that license is being abused to allow the hoarding of information under a single banner without regard for the creator's wishes. It's just there so you avoid being sued in as many situations as possible, and to be cited when you don't want to let a page go - that's what the actions are stating, loud and clear.<br />
::::::::::Please stay on topic, as personal attacks are a fallacy and have no place in intellectual debate. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:51, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I have already gone through all these deletion requests. Please give some examples of what you want, because this work has already been done by me.<br />
:::::::::::I have quoted our editing policy verbatim, bit I guess you didn't read it? Are works submitted to D&D Wiki to be edited mercilessly and copied at will? <br />
:::::::::::This is the first time I have had any contact with your user. Your contributions speak for your experience. It's not an insult, it's just as simple as looking through your user contributions.<br />
:::::::::::If you just want to submit your ''crap'' here then, frankly, I don't want anything to do with any policy that you would ''crap out''.<br />
:::::::::::Please supply references to your claims, and if you are doing research please don't take quotes from {{user|Marasmusine}} out of context. I already stated which users I prefer to work with. I don't think it's too hard for you to lay out some of this sweat so that we can get to the core of what everyone wants.<br />
:::::::::::And anyone who could get sued is the user who re-licenses an already oublished work. Please read and quote the GNU FDL (and start go deeper into all the discussions that have already answered this question). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::: *''"Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor."''<br />
::::::::::::There's also the matter of the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Light_Beam_(5e_Spell) Light Beam] page being reverted, despite the author being the SSC.<br />
::::::::::: *''"This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this."''<br />
::::::::::::I wasn't aware that what pretty much amounts to an informal blurb there was part of policy. Even if it is, it does not say you agree to using the license, nor does it say you lose the copyright to the work. It says "your writing" which could be anything from your flavor to whatever else, is vague and reminiscent of government policy passed with the express purpose of giving a government too much power over something.<br />
::::::::::: *''"...assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about."''<br />
::::::::::::Having just received a warning, from you, no less, only to return to this page and see that you are also engaging in such behavior: taunting or baiting me, which is a matter of interpretation (I interpreted your statement about experience to be such, but I can't warn you for it), and quoting users out of context, such as using my colloquial usage of "crap" to insult my propositions and position on this debate.<br />
::::::::::::If I was quoting Mara, especially out of context, I apologize. It wasn't my intention, and if I did, I didn't realize. Your preference is all well and good, but again, it has no bearing on the debate at hand. I've already provided sources in the original post for this particular section of the debate (sorry I neglected to create a new section, but I was also so flustered that I didn't even sign the original post). If you're looking for specific demands, it would be, to restate for the umpteenth time on this page alone, to have a clearer definition of terms used in order to close loopholes that may be abused by users acting to keep a creator from exercising their rights; and, to reinstate the deletion requests, and honor said requests, of Varkarrus where they were valid to begin with, such as, again, [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages and the aforementioned Light Beam page. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have already responded on these talk pages. Your reasons are wrong, but you are still trying to make them your argument here?<br />
:Again, read the GNU FDL, look at previous discussions, and you must also understand that IP addresses use the same terminology as if you had created an account.<br />
:You have less than 500 edits, and you are trying to implement a far reaching policy based on how you perceive the situation? Again, I would expect to be working with a more experienced user here, probably no less than 3000 edits.<br />
:You said ''"... I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun."'' so how is your work on this policy not 'throwaway crap'? It's not a misquote, it's your logic, actions, and words exactly.<br />
:Maybe it's because you have less than 500 edits, but it's not a debate to win and lose. Have you even read [[w:Wikipedia:Consensus]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Can you explain why they're wrong, since you want to state that so plainly? I think this is simply a matter of us having different definitions of what a "major contribution" is... Which is sort of the point of this entire discussion, isn't it?<br />
::I have, I have, I do.<br />
::Irrelevant, again. Someone with no edits could just as easily come in and read all this and have the conversation as someone with a million. The difference is whether they have the foresight to understand what the chances will do, and if I haven't demonstrated that yet, I'd be glad to.<br />
::Yes, that is what I said. It's good thing I'm not the one able to edit deletion policy, then, isn't it? Sarcasm aside, you know full well it isn't, you're just continuing to mischaracterize my statement and use it to try and bait me, which, again, no one can warn you for, so you're free to violate your own behavioral policy as you wish. If you find the time, please, look at the pages I've created. Maybe they aren't balanced correctly, which I readily admit, but that's why I was posting them and requesting review - but they aren't just the kind of thing someone could come up with off the top of their heads, throw on the wiki, and walk away thinking they were the greatest creator ever. None of my pages are nominated for FA or QA, and I wouldn't nominate myself unless I felt I deserved it, and I don't. I have a long way to go to be as good as the rest of those articles.<br />
::I hadn't no, but now I have, thank you. As it happens, there's more in there to support me, so I appreciate it. Based on everything I'm seeing right now, actually, you seem to be the only one who ''doesn't'' agree at this point. I'd like to continue going about convincing you, but you don't seem very receptive to conversation for some reason. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 23:45, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Speedy deletion for author requests==<br />
In regards to speedy deletion, I'm not sure I follow.<br/><br />
Several times now user-requested-deletion has been '''very''' controversial. Once when I was an admin, I deleted a page that had three reasons for deletion&mdash;including the user requesting deletion in good faith&mdash;but not only was that deletion overturned by another admin, it seemingly caused extreme ire towards me from that admin. Especially with the current vagueness of "significant contribution," the 14 day period allows there to be discussion if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then I don't really see the problem with keeping it for 14 days, especially if it can prevent unintended controversy and ire.<br/><br />
Having the 14 day grace period serves another purpose: it lets anyone who wants to save the content do so. I know {{User|Quincy}} has done so with several deleted pages, and I don't see a strong enough reason not to let that happen, either.<br/><br />
If my own perspective and judgement here fails to convince, Green Dragon commented on this very page back in October, as follows. "It has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page." - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:05, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:"Saving" content by making edits is a problem. When I made edits at [[:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)]] this was seen as a bad-faith attempt to negate the author's request. It is also a problem if an author wishes to withdraw their work because they misunderstood the license and wish to retain their copyright. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I should have been more clear. When I wrote "saving" content, I meant either (1) copying it into a text file for personal use, or (2) creating a copy in one's userspace with the author's permission. I agree that editing a page to negate deletion request is likely to be problematic. That is best discouraged, but in light of my preceding comments, I don't believe speedy deletion is the best way to discourage that. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I agree that there simply shouldn't be speedy deletion unless the page was unfinished and only had one contributor: the author. Other people may be invested in a page even if the author was unaware (someone could have it in their watch-list, using it for a character already, and you get no notification of the "follow"). I would argue that pages should be soft-locked to some extent while the discussion proceeds. It allows everyone, not just administration and/or the author to voice their take on things, consolidate context, save the contents of the page as a back-up or for Fair Use recreation, etc, etc. Between that and actually defining "primary contributor" or "major contribution" I think this page would improve vastly. If you lock the page, allow the discussion to proceed, investigate the history and talk page, and it can be determined using those new definitions that the author was, in fact, the primary contributor or the ''only'' contributor, it doesn't make sense for there to be extensive discussion. As I said, and as others have said long before me, in those cases, the page can just be created anew following the license terms and copyright law. If reaction videos on YouTube can be protected, and AMVs can be protected, there's no reason that a re-imagined page on a wiki couldn't be too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:38, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::There [[:Template:Locked_Page|is precedent]] for contributors requesting a page they created to be locked, of course. That seems like it could be a good option to employ.<br />
::::I'm unsure about the correlation between YouTube videos and D&D Wiki content. Despite that, I believe it would be fair to assume that an author's deletion request can also be assumed to be a request for page protection. If we keep the 14 day grace period, then I would advocate for including into our policy. Maybe something like this could replace what is currently under [[Help:Deletion_Policy#Request_of_sole_significant_contributor|request of sole significant contributor]]?<br />
{{quote|The sole significant contributor ("SSC") of a page can request its deletion using the [[#Proposed Deletion|deletion proposal]] process. For the purpose of this criteria, the SSC retains this privilege until another user makes a significant contribution to the page. As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way. Any edit(s) deliberately marked as a minor edit is never considered a significant contribution.<br />
<br />
<s>If the SSC informally requests deletion, another user can propose deletion on their behalf.</s><br />
<br />
If when the SSC requests deletion the page meets other criteria for [[#Speedy Deletion|Speedy Deletion]], an admin may speedily delete it, but otherwise the 14-day period normally afforded for [[#Proposed Deletion|Proposed Deletion]] should be retained.<br />
<br />
During the 14-day period, an admin may exercise the option to protect or "lock" the page from further edits, so as to not stir up controversy regarding content that may soon be deleted. Regardless of protection, the corresponding talk page should be used for any warranted discussion or dissent instead of the content page itself, as with all deletion proposals.<br />
<br />
As content contributed to D&D Wiki is released under the [[Help:Legal|GNU Free Documentation License 1.3]], there is no inherent or special protection afforded to a page's content even if the SSC requests deletion. Nonetheless, it is courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of this deleted content regardless of why the SSC requested deletion.}}<br />
<br />
::::It's more complex than would be ideal, but this is the most succinct way I've found to address all points that have been brought up regarding this criteria. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:11, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: <s>I have never understood why “author’s request” deletions are forced to go through the fortnight grace period and previous attempts to get {{user|Green Dragon}} to explain have been futile. I’m completely fine with having “author request” be a valid criterion for speedy deletion. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:14, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</s><br />
::::::Actually, it seems like exactly what the scenario calls for. Complex or not, it needs to be written clearly and cover as many cases as possible, which I believe your draft here does. If this had existed prior to the current controversy, it would have been avoided entirely, I think. The 14 days was addressed earlier, and I see no reason for that part to change; it gives everyone, even the SSC, time to back-up the page, and time for others to discuss its removal. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Geodude, I feel you are implying there is no reason why. Let me be more straightforward with the reasons I provided.<br />
:::::::*14 days enables anyone actively using the content to download it without screwing over their character/campaign. Let's not forget that's the primary purpose of content: to actually be used. It's entirely possible someone has a tarrasqin character they are using in a monthly or biweekly campaign; deleting their race without warning not only screws them, but discourages people from actually using our site for its intended purpose.<br />
:::::::*14 days affords discussion of any matter an admin may not have considered with speedy deletion. E.g., the content is integral to a campaign setting or a ruleset, or there are dissenting but valid opinions on how "significant" seemingly insignificant contributions are, among other possibilities.<br />
:::::::Do you believe these reasons are not significant enough? - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You are correct, Guy; I was under the impression that the only reason was because the owner said so. Now that you’ve demonstrated that there ''are'' valid reasons, I’ve retracted my previous comment, and support your proposed changes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:37, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing another user other than the SSC to PfD a page. This is too vague, and it puts the ultimate responsibility in a place where I don't want it to be.<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing these pages to be speedily deleted. I don't like the idea of making admins go through the added stress and workload of checking histories, user contributions, reasons, etc etc in such a short time. As {{user|Marasmusine}} so well pointed out, these PfDs are not in good faith, so why pile all these tasks onto the people doing the work?<br />
:::::::::Why should the pages be locked? Our contributions specifically state "''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.''" So this seems to just be the wish of some user (without the experience) getting implemented. I don't see this as at all necessary, we have histories and a user base who have their own interests and that is not to make the SSC feel alienated.<br />
:::::::::I would expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::I can't say I agree with that either. Another user could simply come along during a time when the SSC was, say, moving and had no internet, and the page would be gone when they got back.<br />
::::::::::I also can't say I agree with that being the case for ''speedy'' deletion, but checking histories and everything else mentioned ''should'' be the kind of work that goes into this. It's also unfair to say that the requests for deletion that sparked this conversation aren't in "good faith," when not only is that statement undefined, but administration has also been acting in bad faith until yesterday. Proving intent is a sticky situation to get into, and short of pulling up private Discord conversations to prove the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do to argue it. Furthermore, because the SSC to the pages in question wouldn't keep her mouth shut like I asked, she's been blocked for a week. That means she can't renew her requests, only admin like yourself can reinstate the previous request if it is found to be valid retroactively.<br />
::::::::::I will agree, and fight for the notion, that pages should be locked when requested for deletion by a user who, until that very moment, was the sole significant contributor. Regardless of interest or intent, alienation is exactly what is happening right now. This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this. The licensing blurb should be fleshed out, yes. There should be a portion of user sign-up that presents the license and requires agreement, yes. The fact is that editing a page that was requested for deletion in an effort to block the request is pretty much the definition of "in bad faith."<br />
::::::::::Finally, before I go ahead and answer your other statement above, I'll state here as well that assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:18, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The now crossed out portion is already performed when appropriate, so I suppose there isn't any benefit to point out it's a possibility.<br />
<br />
I rewrote the paragraph regarding locks to be extra clear that it's just an option an admin can choose to employ if it seems beneficial. I can't edit the policy itself anyway, so I expect if an admin copies my entry that bit can be removed anyway <br />
<br />
One would "expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out"? To be frank, I'm not a fan of how that was phrased... I'm a volunteer here, not an intern or an employee. <br />
But anyway, if it is to be expanded somehow, what should be included? The wikilink there is meant to cover anything relevant to legal issues. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Good Faith" ==<br />
<br />
I've seen, I think, some controversy around deleting articles for the unspecified personal reasons of the authors based on "good faith." I'd just like to say that I think there's so much controversy because the policy in itself is not good faith. I think that, when a user tried to have their content removed, other users - myself included - take it as an attack on D&D Wiki. After all, it's akin - in my own words - to donating something to Goodwill and then stealing it back, usually - in my experience - because the checkout girl smart-mouthed you.<br />
<br />
This is to say that I don't really fault anyone for invoking this clause, because it's in the rules, but that the clause will always incite conflict. A user who invokes it will be seen as throwing toys out the pram, whereas users who try to see the article are - in my experience - seen as acting in bad faith to undermine the deletion request. And that, I feel is the problem: improving articles is being viewed in bad faith by default. A user editing an article, especially to improve it, should ''always'' be assumed to be in good faith. But that doesn't seem to be the case, here, nor do I think it has ''ever'' been the case even before this clause was codified.<br />
<br />
Further complicating - or, perhaps, clarifying - matters is that some users (I've seen [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] name checked a few times) are preserving this content themselves on user pages. I heard an unverified rumor that Varkarrus offered to backup "her" articles as a .pdf for other users to save after deletion. What this all means - to me - is that users still want this content around. They still view it as worthwhile and valuable. Even the authors did, or else why did they initially post it here? If the authors agreed to host it here, and users still want it, keeping it around should be good faith, not deleting it.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, my analysis of the situation and the clause is that the clause is not in good faith, nor is any invocation of it in good faith. It is - in my analysis - a bad faith move, and the clause should be revoked. At the very least, there were fewer arguments about "good faith" deletions before this clause...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:To clarify, the back-up of pages created primarily by Varkarrus in the form of a .pdf upon request is substantiated by Varkarrus herself via multiple deletion requests that include such an offer.<br />
:I agree with you here, but I'm curious what your alternative will be. Defining the term? Removing the clause entirely, to be replaced with what, if anything? You're absolutely right in your analysis, and I appreciate your use of analogy, personally. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:43, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Aye, sorry if it sounded like I was doubting you. Not the case at all! My alternative is, as I say, that "the clause should be revoked."--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1181129Talk:Main Page2019-06-04T21:30:40Z<p>GamerAim: /* Page Appreciation */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race)&diff=1181109Talk:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)2019-06-04T20:40:09Z<p>GamerAim: /* Deletion */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Quality Article Nomination==<br />
{{Quality Article Nominee|[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
Okay, barring this being a featured article, it's ''at least'' worthy of being a quality article, assuming I put an image up, no?<br />
<br />
:I anticipated that QAs are pages ready to be dropped into any campaign. If there is a design disclaimer then it needs some examination to see if it suitable. If the detachable head is the thing that DMs need to be careful with, then ''that'' should be a Variant (uh oh, it going to be a variant of a variant) in the same way that the core rulebooks handle variants that use optional rules. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point there Mara. This should ideally be addressed before the nominations continue further. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've had a stab at doing this, although I would also like to rework the actual mechanics of the Cursed variant too. I also moved the Outcast variant to variants, since it's a variant. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Your "stab" has damaged the race considerably. Without the blindsight, the body cannot fight without its head without suffering disadvantage to all attacks, no matter how close to the enemy it is. The race cannot lose its head because it can summon the head to the body, which negates the author-intended use of the head as a risk factor and possible plot point in a module, one-shot, or campaign. The only change you've made that isn't completely out of left field is removing the subrace classifications. The removal, however, doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the race, it's just changing terminology.<br />
::::No, actually, even worse, you've removed any reference to the ''Call Steed'' cantrip created specifically for this race to use, and therefore also removed the intended investment the character should have in a singular creature as their bonded-for-life-steed. You've also removed the ability for the head to rest on the shoulders of the body, which negates the race's ability to blend in with other mortals who might be unfamiliar with the race. One could argue ''that'' is a substantial addition, if they prefer to be recognized immediately, and therefore most likely have a tougher time in RP. Furthermore, I just realized you removed ''all'' mentions of blindsight, not just for the regular version with its head, making the variants completely useless in combat or even navigating their environment. The entire thing is completely chopped up and ruined in this state. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Hi<br />
:::::*I have tried to remove the implication that the body and head are two separate creatures, which is the Design Disclaimer issue that would prevent this from being a QA.<br />
:::::*I removed the blindsight because being able to bypass invisibility, illusions and hiding creatures (even at 10 feet) is very powerful at 1st level.<br />
:::::*"The body" (i.e., you) fights normally since you draw line of sight to your head. You would have disadvantage if you are trying to attack something that is not in the line of sight to your head, which is a fair tradeoff for the versatility of being able to put your head somewhere else.<br />
:::::*Call Steed. This spell is up for deletion, so I tried to find alternatives. Furthermore, I have problems with call steed's balance. A ''cantrip'' that increases a beast's Intelligence to 6 and establishes a telepathic link?<br />
:::::*You can deride the reformatting of the variants if you want but it's something that needed doing.<br />
:::::*I had considered the placing of the head on the shoulders, but I also was interested in what was possible if it wasn't allowed. The rationale of "blending in with other mortals" is a little moot considering the extraordinary appearance of many other player races. In any event this is trivial to add back in.<br />
:::::*I ''already stated'' that I need to look at the cursed variant's mechanics. Maybe it will have blindsight, maybe it won't, please hold off on your complaints until I've actually done this.<br />
:::::Finally, the mantra of wikis is "be bold"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold], since anything can be undone. Good-faith edits should not be shamed with comments like "damaging the race" and "chopped up and ruined". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:47, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Edit: I just read through the Cursed variant and there's nothing saying that you would be blind, so I don't understand the complaint that it doesn't have blindsight. I was careful to state that the variant's features replaced the decapitated trait, so the restriction of "only draw line of sight to your head" does not apply. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having playtested the race myself on more than once occasion... There was no implication that they were separate creatures, just a caveat that certain spells might not affect both unless they were both in range. Blindsight does not pass invisibility, illusions, or hiding creatures unless the creature ''with'' blindsight makes a check (actively attempts to do so), like any other creature would. Bypassing those things is what Truesight is for. One of the main points of the race was to be able to have your head be elsewhere while your body could still fight, which was meant to cover for a wide variety of situations - which it did, in playtest. Being able to instantly recall your head to your body completely negates the majority of the draw and risk of choosing to play the race, which was what made it fun to begin with. Call Steed IS up for deletion, you're right, so I can't argue with wanting to find alternatives; however, it was included to serve the part of the idea where a dullahan was expected (culturally) to bond with a single mount for life and be able to communicate with it much like a real life person can do with a trained animal, hence the increased INT. I can also understand changing the classification of subrace to variant. I find it hard to see the edits as good-faith when the page was requested for deletion, then the template was removed prematurely despite it qualifying for deletion based on policy, and now another user is suddenly interested and attempting to become a primary contributor to block the page's deletion. If you had, for example, created a new race page and used 2nd Variant, as I've seen done before, you could easily make all your desired changes and request that page be QA, and I bet you'd get it because yours would be closer in line to officially published content. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:00, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::*The invisibility condition says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. Blindsight is a special sense. Blindsight also says that you perceive your surroundings without relying on sight. Any obscurement that relies on sight is therefore overcome. <br />
::::::::*You can still play as not being able to summon your head, if you look at the text I added to the Cursed variant.<br />
::::::::*There was no deletion proposal message on the page when I made my edits, so I was unaware that there was a deletion proposal or the reasons for it. Your allegations against me are unfair and I'm sorely tempted to bring it up as a [[Help:Behavioral Policy|civility]] issue. <br />
::::::::*Having said that, I am completely open to starting a new page and putting my version there instead, if there is a concensus for it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I must have been thinking of the below argument about illusions; you're right about the invisibility. Out of combat that might be an issue, but in terms of stopping a surprise attack from an invisible creature, the creature would still technically approach and attack off-turn, surprising you anyway. It would be impossible to become Cursed under your conditions, since you can summon your head, so it would be strange to be without it for ten days unless you were rendered unconscious for that long somehow. I had assumed you would have done your research, and part of that assumption was that you were aware of the huge issue now surrounding Varkarrus' desire to leave the wiki along with the pages they've created. My assumption, then, caused me to mischaracterize your edits as above. Not only would I support the creation of a new page to maintain the integrity of this one, but I would gladly help edit in any way necessary and playtest like I did with this one - without making any claim to the page, in the event you ever wanted it deleted. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::You can't summon your head if you choose the Cursed variant: that whole variant is now for if you want the style of play originally intented.<br />
::::::::::I will petition to Green Dragon that I create a new Dullahan page with all new text/traits and ask him to reconsider the deletion of this page. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Featured Article Nomination==<br />
{{Failed Featured Article Nominee|{{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
I believe this article is worthy of being a featured article. It's got it all: fleshed out and detailed lore, interesting new game mechanics, versatility, balance, fluff, and a nice piece of artwork to round it off. It's been a few weeks since the last major edit, and a full month since the initial concept, too. Maybe it could use a few touchups, and the nomination process really brings out the search for where those can go. Whaddya say, folks? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have failed this nomination after two months of no discussion and no consensus formed. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' Seems pretty shit imo. I don't see how this is a race or a people, maybe a racial class or smth. Like, how they are linked to the Feywild? and how does this plays off or uses any of the actual Dullahan besides the headless horsemen gimmick? You should try giving your "races" more character before submitting for this featured thing or whatever and making such claims in your intro. <br />
:Everyone is entitled to their opinions but telling someone their idea is "pretty shit" & "they should try giving etc" is unacceptable. Please check out [[Help:Behavioral Policy]] or ask questions if this is a problem. I issued an <s>IP</s> block for this, account creation enabled if you wish to register and contribute politely and constructively. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' I've been meaning to give this nomination a review for some time now but its overall unconventionality makes it difficult to formulate the issues with this page and so I've been avoiding it. However, while there are a few more general issues here, I'm more concerned about the significant issue of splitting the PC into two entities and then applying a plethora of tedious rule specifications so that that entity can function. I think that if you have to change how the game functions at a basic level for the sake of one player's homebrew, then that homebrew doesn't eloquently work with the standards of the game. Furthermore, if that you need to read five separate rule specifications for each of your PC's races alone then it applies further workload for the DM and as far as fixing some of the issues with this race, I imagine this list of rule specification will only get bigger and more tiresome. As such, due to the tedious and centrally flawed nature of the race, I will be opposing this nomination until it can be reworked. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:59, 1 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
: Okay, I don't want to sound biased but I think your reasoning for opposing the FA nomination sets a worrying and dangerous precedent. Your reason for opposing this article as FA is the exact same reason why I nominated it in the first place. I very strongly feel that homebrew, whether in D&D, or other games, should break convention! Experimenting with game mechanics is fun and can lead to interesting results! So, sure, the Dullahan requires a few errata (and let's face it, there isn't many and they're easy to remember) to make the disembodied head work... but, if you were playing D&D as a Dullahan, with a competent GM who is easily able to keep track of said errata, wouldn't that be a fun experience with a lot of potential for the kinds of shenanigans that make D&D fun? That's for an experienced super-organized GM though, if the rules are too clunky for more mundane GMs (and I really don't think they are), the fact that the experience would be fun and interesting means that it'd be worth the effort to make it work vs abandoning it entirely. Either way, GMs are under no obligation to allow a homebrew concept even if it's a D&Dwiki featured article, and I feel there's going to need to be a community-wide discussion on how conventional a piece of D&D homebrew needs to be in order to be allowed as a featured article. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:45, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment''' Overall I think this is written well and has the right amount of information a feature article needs. It has things I really like too. Fey, it has flavor and isn't just throwing two creature types on there being all bland. Like, I want to support this article simply because it doesn't do what so many articles with two types did. Lifestyle choice is cool. Different, and interesting. But this kind of sums up my feels on most the traits. Just very unsure of them. Blindsight on the body, I think I get it? But if the body and head have a telepathic bond, I don't think you need Blindsight. Which, in regards to the head/body relationship, there's no limit to how far the head can go? Personally not a fan of this but I can see it being in the realm of "Rule of Cool". The head specifically with its temporary hit points and shared pool with the body is interesting. Again, traits that I'm just unsure of. Temp HP is my fav mechanic right now. I'm not sure how it feel about it here, combined with unconventional AC calculation which it too is another bundle of neat sprinkled with, hmmm different. I'd be more inclined to use normal AC calc for the head, force the player to protect thing as much as possible. Be afraid to not be one unit. With all that, I think its great something different has been presented. It follows right along with 5e philosophy and design to add something new to the game, not just rehash and reuse existing material. For me, it is just a little too different. I don't want to impede the articles success just because my hesitation though. Good luck with the nomination. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Can confirm. There's no limit on how far the head and body can be from each other. Right now, that even extends to other planes. If that's a bit excessive it could be tuned down, but the potential for a dullahan's head to be separated from their body by long distances has lots of potential for stories, and player schemes: sending a dullahan's head to fly down a tunnel to scout ahead without being seen / fly over obstacles that can't be walked over, to deliver messages. Or the dullahan's head could be captured by foes, and the body blindly writes down what the villain is saying... or the reverse; a villain unfamiliar with a dullahan's flying head chained their body but their head is escaping to find help. Even when they aren't separated long distances, the body's blindsight is still useful as even when in a small area, the body can detect foes outside the head's sight or vice-versa. It's true: the Dullahan is an unusual and unique race, but it was because I wanted to explore its head/body mechanic that I created the page, and is the main reason why I feel this page should be a FA. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
::All fair points. I think one other would be a DM would have to figure out what even happens if the two can separate that far because as one example is, the head could be stolen! You've still got a few months though. Maybe there's a way to polish things up so that the traits mirror criteria for variant rules of featured articles. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
'''Support''' I'm not huge into 5e mechanics, so I won't pretend I am by giving a detailed rundown of what's good or bad about this race. It's imaginative, unconventional and well-written all around. Kinda tired of all the FAs being races lately, but at least this one is different, as CL pointed out.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
:OI! \o/ I pointed it out too! How ya gonna forget your pal BigShot?? grrrr >.< /jk <3 [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opposed''' I have looked over this and Varkarrus their previous comments. But I must disagree, a race is not where you break the mold as this is where you break the game easily, subclasses and classes can be very unique races quite simply cannot deviate too much from the norm before becomming overpowered but lets say why this is overpowered. Lets start from the top to bottom. Fey ancestory, sure thats fine and all but be carefull as this is the elf their thing. Now to their second ability, Call steed. First this cantrip is basically useless. The requirements are too much for any usefull use and the mount having to actually travel makes it not very game changing as there are two situations. Either the user is already on the mount, or so far away that this cantrip is not usefull. Outcast however, eh I guess, nothing unique and nothing bad. Now time for the reason why this is op as hell. Blindsight, this wording is just bad, if you dont want it to be actual blindsight just word it that the body can only see 10 feet around it. as the only thing blindsight is is being conciously aware what is around them. Being able to cast spells from both your head and body is just kinda op. I dont how to word this all in such a small text but it just very broken. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 07:27, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I feel like I should mention that the Dullahan race is being tested for balance atm in Cotsu's homebrew testing campaign. I will neither accept nor refute your comments on balance, just wait a bit for the campaign to give feedback on balance. Though, I am fine with rewording the blindsight feature. That said, I should correct your misconception: [[Call Steed (5e Spell)]] isn't "basically useless", it's the ability [[5e SRD:Find Steed]] reworked into a cantrip. It does provide benefits beyond just messaging a bonded steed! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:53, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:: I have checked the wording of the spell, it needs to have been bonded already, if the mount dies it cannot be resummoned and if it is somewhere else it has to physically move troughout the plane instead of being summoned. So yes how it is worded right now, it is borderline unusable. and if it is the find steed worked into the find steed then that is broken and steals the paladin specific spell for anyone to take which is just not fun. Blindsight gives you immunity to all visual illusions and no sneaking up behind them. Racial balance really does not need any playtesting before you can judge the balance of it, if you do need that it shows inexperience (Which is not bad, we all start at some point) some features are very much overpowered to the point it outshines most other races. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 10:50, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::Call Steed and Find Steed both allow for mounted combat as a seamless unit, and allowing the user to target both themselves and their mount with a spell: this is a far more important component to the spell than having the mount arrive instantaneously. Depending on where you keep your mount, it may only be a few rounds away. If you aren't in combat, waiting for your mount to arrive before leaving isn't a big deal either. Also: the Musicus meter provides scoring for blindsight, and keep in mind that the Dullahan only has 10 feet of it, too! The Cursed Dullahan may have 30 ft of blindsight, but they literally cannot see out of that range: a pretty fair trade if you ask me. I don't appreciate the "inexperience" remark, I've been at this for a year now. And, when you make a mold-breaking race like the Dullahan, YES it's going to need playtesting for balance. I also want to point out that WotC have released several mold-breaking races. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::: A year is an extremely short time, I call myself inexperienced still and have played and dmed for almost 7 years. Find steed is a paladin only spell for a reason and should stay this way as it is as icon to the paladin as find familiar to the wizard (and warlock) Call Steed is a worse version, an unneeded one at that. As like said before, either your mount is right below you or too far away to call. A Cantrip that should not exist. I do not care for the musicus meter, blindsight gives immunity to these things, despite only having 10. Based on the mystic, Tremorsense is a first level spell (something weaker then blind or true sight) and true sight a third level spell, making blind sight a second level spell. (Based on its power compared to these other two) and that is for 1 minute. having this permanent is incredibly op, no matter how small Not seeing out that range really does not matter, as either a character plays around that or they dont play this race. And sure, give me one example that actually worked without having the dm have to house rule things --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::I'd just like to reinforce that you should not call other users inexperienced unless they themselves have identified as inexperienced. Doing so can come off as belittling. As for your comment that racial balance does not require playtesting, I think that the developers of D&D 5e themselves would disagree, considering that the game was in development for years. You also say that blind sight is (or should be) a 2nd level spell. So is darkvision, which races have for free. Yes, darkvision lasts much longer, and 1:1 having blind sight as a race might be less "balanced" even at only 10 feet, but there is still some room for a race to have it. At the end of the day, homebrew is not for every table; even first-party content is not for every table, but homebrew has more freedom to try new things. If the DM doesn't want to plan around having a dullahan, he won't allow one in his game. I know we are to refrain from the "only a good DM" fallacy, but the truth is a DM should not allow all content &mdash; homebrew or from first-party supplements &mdash; without reviewing it first. This article has no IRR templates on it, so I don't see why its balance is being questioned solely in regards to its potential as a featured article.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::Just my thoughts. Call stead is a good spell as it prevents you from losing your stead because you had to leave it behind or because some random stole it, although someone could add that you know where the steed is when you cast the cantrip in case it can't get to you. Minor question, with call steed can you say anything else telepathically or only to come. As for blindsight; the fact it lets you ignore illusions and invisibility is a problem for the true dullahan, it is fine with the cursed dullahan because it is blind and possibly deaf (which should be specified) so you can have interesting shenanigans where it can see through the illusion but it does not know that the others are seeing an illusion. With the true dullahan the blindsight on the head is excessive and with the body maybe make it so it still has the blind condition or something? But otherwise I think the class is good, I am looking forward to using this race. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::: I feel it's, again, important to point out that the Blindsight on the True Dullahan extends to just 10 feet. By the time the Dullahan is within 10 feet of an illusion, its likely already too late. Still, I can add that it can't see through illusions; only invisibility and darkness, if you feel like that'd help? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: Even with 10 feet that can tell you if a person you are talking to and want to ambush/kidnap is really there or if they're an illusion, or if one section of a wall is actually not there and a group of minions are about to ambush you, on top it deals with invisibllity. If a DM didn't really use illusions, blindsight wouldn't be a big problem, but if they did it would make some fun things you can do with illusions pointless so saying or just suggesting that illusions affect blindsight would make it perfectly fine. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Musicus Rating==<br />
{{Musicus|6}}<br />
<br />
=== Base ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Fey Ancestry<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Cantrip<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Skill Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 2.5 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== True Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Darkvision<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1(?) || Flying Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Blindsight /10ft<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|str}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || No Food/Water/Air<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Limited Blindsight<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Portable Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== 3 Star Vote ==<br />
<br />
Since the voting is anonymous I'd personally like to provide transparency when I vote and I am guilty of not giving it 5 stars. I explained my thoughts above but if there are more questions why I voted this way, I don't mind sharing. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:16, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm curious as to why, given that the usual logic is "one star is awful, two is below average, three is average or acceptable, four is above average, five is exceptional." I suppose it depends on what your metric is, as well. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Reasons are above in the Featured Article Nomination discussion. I don't really argue with Redhawk's points either. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 21:09, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Having read the above, I certainly would. The fact that some other articles that are lower quality are featured, yet this one is not, baffles me to no end. I will, again, say that it really just depends on what your metric is. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying "this is a matter of preference, and yours clearly isn't the same as mine." --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Well maybe you can explain why this is better than I give credit or better than nameless featured articles. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 07:17, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Gladly. For starters, Call Steed isn't a useless cantrip. Before the update to this race today, it was the only way for the head to reliably find its body again - using the telepathic link with the mount and keeping the body mounted, taking advantage of a saddle, class, or feat that gives advantage to staying mounted. Having the head and body in separate places made for great RP moments when I've used this character in three different one-shots because she fit the setting. The head acting as a scout, or going WITH the scout, and the body relaying simple concepts via hand signs (advance, retreat, danger, be quiet, hold position) made for great tactics.<br />
:::::If an enemy has 15ft or more of movement, the blindsight does not save the body or head, because the enemy would still slip in and attack off-turn, therefore retaining surprise. Blindsight does not see through illusions, which are magical tricks to the brain; that's what TRUEsight is for. All the blindsight did for the character, in any occasion, was allow the body to fight while the head was elsewhere. The use of a glaive for reach allowed the character to fight to the limits of its vision, but move accurately thanks to the mount's vision. Cavalier Fighter, arguably the second-most optimized version of this race, still did not place her above other party members with vanilla races, nor did it make her feel like "the main character" of any one-shot.<br />
:::::The myriad of mechanics involved in this race, and playing it correctly, make it an absolute joy to play. My table has not only NOT found issue with it, even as a Cavalier, but pointed out that an Eldritch Knight that can cast spells and use a bonus action to melee attack would be even more powerful. In fact, one of my DMs even buffed her so she would be effective, saying that the mount should gain HP with her, and that the two could take hits for one another - effectively acting almost as a druid's Wild Shape temporary hit points. At the end of all calculation, this meant she had 244 HP (max CON and Tough at Lv20) + 183 for the horse (31+8x19) for 427HP. My Totem Barbarian has an effective HP of 325x2= 650HP (24CON, Tough, Totem damage resist plus a ring to resist psychic damage). Their damage per turn is about the same (four glaive swings or two maul swings with rage bonus), both can tank by imposing disadvantage or granting enemies advantage to goad hits.<br />
:::::I've played the race several times, run the math several times, and both in theory and practice, everything has meshed together exactly as it seems it was intended. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I did read all this and go over my original thoughts awhile ago. I changed my vote to a four. There's aspects I am still not sold on but I can concede it is better than a 3. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 06:59, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletion ==<br />
'''Support''' There is no reason this page cannot be deleted as per the previous requested based on wiki policy. There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request. The request template was also removed prior to the 14 days listed for discussion to occur. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1049612&oldid=1049590 diff] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1068474&oldid=1054068 diff]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::First, your citations only point to grammatical help, which hardly constitutes as someone (in this case an admin) becoming a "primary contributor" unless you ''really'' reach on your definition. No extra substance was added to the idea in question, no history, no culture, no new features, etc.<br />
::Second, because administration failed to honor a valid request for deletion and removed the deletion template prematurely, there's now another user who is beginning to edit the page. As of right now, the only thing they've managed to do is reword one of the main features of the race which, I would argue, was both unnecessary and removes one of the author intended uses of the race: a search for their stolen head. As a matter of fact, if I am pressed, I can easily sight the author's own words on the matter to prove such was the intention, which therefore makes that a violation of editing policy as written. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:07, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I'm sorry, ''what'' was a violation of editing policy? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:56, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::: I think what Max is trying to say is that he feels authorial intent is being disregarded, from my conversation with him on Discord and his comments above, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or coarse. I will agree with Geodude that I guess I should have chosen my words better, but he's also right about his interpretation of my statement. This is why I don't like the posh talk - makes it kinda tough to figure out what people're saying. As long as there's no swearing, I could probably just start typing more normally and be misunderstood less. Think I'm gonna do that. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Support''' I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contrubtions (with the intent of creating a new Dullahan page with new text and my rewritten traits). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removing the flying speed, and making the traits usable is wholly a significant contribution for this race. Not only that but numerous bits of advice on the talk page also shaped this race. However, let's let consensus sort this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Based on the talk surrounding the FA nomination above, and based on my own playtesting on three occasions, the race was perfectly usable in the state it was in. Everything worked as intended, and the table enjoyed the experience, even going as far as to request I play the character the third time. Were there any points on the talk page that ended up being implemented into the race? And, further, the topic of grammatical help or minor tweaks to numbers has been covered above as well. Was there another point to discuss to reach consensus? I had fallen under the impression that it had been established, aside from hearing ConcealedLight's opinion on the matter, or EpicBoss' opinion, as they were the other two who changed wording for clarity. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:A version of the article can return upon its deletion, for one thing. For another, the length of time an article has existed seems a tad irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted by request from the sole significant contributor. Even further, the author has offered to create a back-up .pdf version by request, so it's not as though the content will disappear for good - in this state or in one that follows the conventions and guidelines of this wiki. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I am, and always have been, opposed to this section of the deletion policy. a) if the article can be restored upon deletion, deletion is a waste of time; b) D&D Wiki would be all the lesser without this article, so its deletion is detrimental to the users and the health of the website; c) saving it as a .pdf (or on a user-page) does not allow users to find it on dynamic page lists, so users cannot find it, and point b is invoked.<br />
::I feel for Vark and I understand she is upset, but I will never personally support - whether GD allows it or not - the right of users to take away things that they willingly and knowingly gave to the community. Arbitrary deletion of valuable content defeats the purpose of preserving homebrew.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I can't really agree that it's arbitrary given the context. Restoring the page after deletion has a lot of important implications, including removing the original author's name from subsequent versions. If the wiki would be lesser without it, despite the ability to recreate it in spirit, then that seems to imply to me that, perhaps, the author/creator's work deserves more respect than it's been shown, especially recently. If it is, in fact, shown that respect, it would be deleted as the author requested. If she wants to leave the playground and take her toys with her, the fact that it's someone else's favorite doesn't change that it's hers. This race happens to be my single favorite page on the entire wiki; I completely understand how you feel, in my own way! But at the end of the day, it ''should'' be a creator's right to retract their creations if they feel they aren't being respected. A painter can remove their work from a gallery if it is mocked or defaced; I see this in a similar fashion. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::1) I understand that Vark has had issues with the community, but I still consider all deletion requests based on personal reason to be arbitrary, regardless of whether they can or will be enforced by the administration.<br />
::::2) Legally-speaking, reposting the article without attribution would be, well, illegal unless Varkarrus declared the content to be free of copyright in accordance with U.S. copyright law. In other words, any reposting would still retain her name or else have to be deleted for copyright violation.<br />
::::3) I agree that Vark's work deserves more respect, and when I was more active, I even championed this. If you look above at my support for the Featured Article Nomination, is it any surprise I wish to keep this article around? :)<br />
::::4) The thing is, she's not leaving with HER toys. It is more akin to a painter donating a work to an art gallery. Sure, it's sad to see it defaced, but you GAVE IT AWAY. Please see my more detailed response on the deletion policy talk page. Vark was herself involved enough in the community to have known for a good long time that she did not have total creative or distributive control over "her" content. D&D Wiki is not - in spirit or in practice - an art gallery in the way that you describe, even if certain policies were - against my suggestion - enforced to give some more control to authors. In spite of those policies, it is helpful to come to D&D Wiki with a preference for "ours" over "mine" :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:40, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Deletion_Policy&diff=1181107Help talk:Deletion Policy2019-06-04T20:29:14Z<p>GamerAim: /* "Good Faith" */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>I know you said "be bold" but I'd rather keep the writing style consistent, if you don't mind making a few changes?<br />
<br />
#'''Sole contributor requests deletion.''' Please make it clear that this only applies to insubstantial articles, i.e. articles which were blanked shortly after creation and which do not qualify as "usable" articles. We do not delete articles simply by user request, as this could be deleterious to the people who use the site. This is one of the causes of a split that occurred among staff years ago :(<br />
#'''Speedy Deletion.''' I believe that [[Template:needsadmin]] is typically used to call out a need for speedy deletion, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Just something worth considering :)<br />
#'''Not English.''' I do recall that, under specific circumstances, non-English pages are allowed. I think the context was that a non-English campaign setting is allowed?<br />
--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You're right. It might be for the best that changes this bold weren't made without a discussion.<br />
:#I would like another opinion on this before adding it in and/or making this policy official. In my own time, I've seen several substantial articles deleted solely due to "Speedy deletion criteria G7" and "author request," and only one or two instances where this was denied. (Iirc at least one of those instances ended in nothing but a furious user and the retention of content that needed improvement, anyway. Doesn't seem to me like that goes well, but I could be wrong.)<br />
:#It is and can be, but even before I became an admin it was apparent to me that direct notification gathers a response more swiftly than that template. If you want it can be added in, but even if it follows precedent I don't really see it being as effective.<br />
:#To me this seems rather dubious. I would like another opinion covering this explicitly before adding it in. Do you know what campaign setting(s) to which this applied? Do you remember who else might have been involved in the instance(s) where a non-English campaign setting was allowed?<br />
:- [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::"G7" should only be invoked in the case of incomplete articles, and maybe only shortly after creation (not sure about that last part). Completed articles should never be deleted under "G7." I don't think I wrote that clearly the first time, but either way GD can confirm this whenever he responds. I was referring to the needsadmin template as being used in place of the delete template, not suggesting that it's improper to ask on the Admin talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but again I don't think it really ''matters'' which template is used to summon a speedy deletion, just saying which one I've seen used for it most often. GD himself allowed the campaign setting to remain, as I recall, but I think it was subsequently deleted for normal reasons. If GD thinks it's a good idea, we could put a note saying to ask him for permission before adding non-English content. Otherwise, I'm fine with continuing our official English-only stance with no written exceptions.<br />
<br />
::I'm mostly sharing my experience with policy here, not any personal opinion of mine, though I do feel strongly about not deleting good content just because OP wants it removed. So long as GD clears up these points, I can't think of any major issues I have with your proposal. I apologize if I came off as dismissive of it just because I only shared suggested corrections!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:01, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::#I agree with GA here.<br />
::#I agree with Guy here that it doesn't seem all that effective. If anything its a preference but not a hard rule.<br />
::#I was involved in that. If I recall correctly, I asked GD about it when I happened upon a largely incomplete setting in Spanish(I believe) and it was deleted. I'm unsure about the name but I believe it was on his talk page.<br />
:::Other then that, this is well written and seems pretty comprehensive. I have no qualms about making this policy atm. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think this is pretty awesomely written, top notch. I've made three tiny additions that I'm hoping aren't controversial, but please anyone speak up or edit them constructively if so.<br />
::::Non-English campaign settings / OGL content are allowed (though, we've historically had a higher required standard of quality for them); We semi-recently deleted a [[Serpia (5e Campaign Setting)|foreign campaign setting]], but this decision was made because of the incompletion and poor quality. I do agree with GamerAim on their points, too, we should be discouraging the use of G7 best we can, within reason. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As it appears to be consensus, I've downplayed "G7." It now should read that it ''allows'' an administrator to speedily delete for this reason, but makes it apparent (hopefully) that this alone shouldn't constitute deletion of quality content.<br />
:::::The part about non-English content was reworked to not apply if a translation is included. In practice, any content not in English at all could effectively be immune to all the other reasons for deletion, just because it's very possible no active users of D&D Wiki may be able understand it. To me seems ''potentially'' very problematic, especially if it's in a language more esoteric than Spanish. If this still isn't lenient enough, I suppose the line can be deleted entirely.<br />
:::::GD's edit summary suggests he's already given this approval, though knowing he's busy it might've been a quick skim that missed finer bits like those brought up here. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm happy enough with this policy and all the latest editions, thus far. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:19, 29 September 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you remember the articles you mentioned being deleted, would you please restore them? I remembered a specific example, and as per [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kaleid_Ooze_%283.5e_Creature%29&type=revision&diff=554355&oldid=554287 here] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&direction=next&oldid=556054#Please_remove_all_my_material_from_this_Wiki here], users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want it uploaded here anymore. I hope this clarifies things :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:03, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::It is worth noting that in the six year period that has passed since the precedents you are citing, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent {{dash}} although clearly precedent differs, which is part of the reason I worked on this. Are you suggesting the '''author request''' portion again be changed?<br />
::::Oh. I fear I now understand why you edited that portion of this (still unofficial) policy. I assume every single time you see a page deleted by author request, you intend to "disagree" with that deletion?<br />
::::... Hopefully I'm jumping to false conclusions, but, I can't help but find that possibility very disappointing. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:45, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As stated elsewhere, it has been solid and longstanding policy not to delete work by author request unless it's unplayable anyway, been around a very short time, or otherwise exceptional circumstances. I don't care to go hunting for ye olde talk page that is miles long with argument over this policy, but the end state is - Nobody owns the work that is posted to D&D Wiki, and we rarely grant the optional courtesy of removing that work just because the author asked for it. Unless [[User:Green Dragon]] has had a major change of heart on this matter (in which case, we should discuss further), the policy should reflect this. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::And please don't passively berate people for making valid contributions to policy; GamerAim is trying to reflect and vocalise the longstanding position this wiki has very strongly held. Speculation and declaring your disappointment over imagined acts doesn't help anybody. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::To be clear, I'm only enforcing long-standing policy as SgtLion said. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and if discussion with GD decides that we should enforce user ownership on D&D Wiki, I will enforce our new policy. My only intent thus far is to educate newer and less-informed administrators (and other users) on our established procedures, not to enforce my own "interpretation" of policy based on a single edit from years before I even joined. The recent shift to improving our codification of policy is, well, recent. Older admins - even myself, a relatively newer admin - tended to have this understanding of the spirit and intent, policy and history of D&D Wiki. I'm not knocking any of the newer admins who came to D&D Wiki with beliefs that greatly differ from those D&D Wiki was founded on. I'm just saying that this is why many policies are buried away in old talk page discussions because we didn't always write down our consensus after it was reached.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: I believe I was the first admin to start citing G7 on this wiki, although I admit I do not recall the context. It may have been a case where the author realized they did not want to release the content under GFDL. It can be a useful procedure for uncontroversial dispute resolution, and also those cases where a user makes an incomplete page then blanks it.<br />
::::::: Now, about these situations where there are old articles (perhaps very good ones) with a user request for deletion. I know historically we have not wanted to let go of these pages, and strictly these pages are not "owned" by the author. This part of G7 is about behaving with good faith, perhaps we should be respecting these users wishes. From a Wikipedia point of view, it's not a deletion process that should even go through a discussion. Having said that, G7 is ''very fragile'' - all it takes is another user to make a non-trivial edit and G7 is invalidated.--{{unsigned|Marasmusine}}<br />
<br />
::::::::Indeed you were, as I remember. I think all the points you present are valid. I do vaguely remember Green Dragon taking a specific strong stance on this that is in-line with what you've said. When I can find the relevant discussion page, or they get a moment to specify again, we can probably be clearer on the matter. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the discussion I was thinking of was [[User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages]], where actually Marasmusine was more involved than I. Though this was a time when courteous spirit played a bigger part than hard policy, so it's hard to imagine the same process going so smoothly anymore. As such, and due to conflicting precedents, I don't mind us going any which way on this policy, it seems whatever works, just as long as we make it clear. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 01:30, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::Looking at that discussion, it seems Green Dragon's concern is that we would be setting a precedent of breaking protocol to meet a user's demands; or starting a slippery slope of deleting things willy-nilly. It's because of the TierArea incident that I started using Wikipedia's speedy deletion critiera to show there is a framework for this. In the same way, we don't have to use the two-week deletion process for a page that just says "LOLOLOL" (criteria G3), unused redirects (criteria G6), material under copyright (G12), or the all too frequent "empty-but-the-template" pages (A3).<br />
:::::::::As for misusing the deletion tool, the point of being an admin is that they can be trusted to use their judgement to make exceptions when it betters the wiki. If there's a pattern of misuse, it's back to RfA with you :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, can we agree to put this policy as written into effect? I think the current wording of 'user request' sufficiently balances that we are under no obligation to delete articles under sole contributor request, but can where judgment allows. <br />
:Or do we want to adjust a clause to say that G7 is not valid where is likely to be controversial, or for substantial content (such as the deletion of featured articles or entire campaign settings)?<br />
:Either way, these few sentences seem to be the only part of contention; If it is, can we just exclude that section 'til we agree on it? I'm still seeing admins implementing deletions improperly as I type, so it'd be nice to a have a super clear policy to point to so we can all be on the same page. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 09:37, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::I think the current version could be implemented, yes. As you stated, G7 is the only point of contention, it seems like, so I'll comment that part out and then move this into the Help namespace. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:16, 8 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This discussion shows me how important it is to have this policy. Everyone has different perspectives about how to delete pages. If it's not written down, it leads to some very heated situations. But, in recollection, it has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page.<br />
:::I am grateful to work with a written down policy about page deletions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I am also grateful; your suggestion to codify our deletion policy after years of informal changes was a good one :) So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion now? An article can be deleted solely for that reason? I've no issue with this, as it seems your stance has changed over the years, but I worded it that way to be doubly sure before we write this in stone! If this is indeed the case, we should also go forward with deleting the Meadowlands campaign setting (again)?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::When I used the word "always" above, simply, I meant to use that word. I have never denied a deletion by authors request except for speedy deletions and deletions of licensing problems (which is in the best interests of D&D Wiki). I don't understand why users want their content to be deleted occasionally (it seems like a waste of their work), and my stance on this has not changed either. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::It was a yes or no question. Please say "yes" or "no" to "So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" ''is'' a valid reason for deletion?"--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yes, currently (and always) that is a valid reason for deletion. Note: '''sole''' contributor, not '''main''' contributor. We likely need more input from more users if we are to change this policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've been operating under the mentality of Wikipedia's CSD G7, which lets pages be deleted speedily upon request of the sole ''significant'' contributor. I take this to mean that a page's creator can request deletion even if another user has made edits like fixing grammar or formatting issues, adding/changing/removing categories, or other minor edits (minor in scope, not necessarily only edits marked as "minor"). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:14, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Thank you! If no one else does so first, I will make sure the wording on this page reflects that articles can be proposed and deleted for that reason. I will also make it clear that they cannot be speedy deleted for that reason under Wikipedia G7. I think Geodude is also right to ask if minor edits from other users void this deletion reason. I assume so, but clarity is always appreciated.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::"Sole ''significant'' contributor" makes more sense for the policy than just "sole contributor" since that does not explicitly state the interactions about maintenance and minor edits. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I-I think this means we've finally all agreed on and codified our deletion policy, speedy deletes and all. Do we celebrate now? This was a collaborative effort between many administrators and other users and I am pleased to have been a part of it \o/ --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:19, 11 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Should we be able to speedily delete pages with no content whatsoever? I'm not talking about pages which are simply sparse; I'm talking about pages like [[Hacker]] and [[Aequor de Chao]] which contain virtually no content at all. I'm mainly comparing this to Wikipedia's CSDs A1 and A3. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:58, 20 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I consider that a reasonable proposal. If no one objects, go ahead and make the appropriate changes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Seems fine to me too. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:10, 22 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It's been a few days and no one objected so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, here we go. Based on the discussion here and [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages here], as well as all the reading I've done and all the back and forth across the wiki recently, I'm just going to go ahead and outline all my arguments as simply as possible in an effort to just get this whole thing over with. I'm going to be blunt, but I'd like to say up front that I have no ill intent or desire to be rude or disrespectful. As I've said in my own user page and several other places, I consider you all my seniors in these matters and in tabletop, and I'd also like to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I'll number my points and try to be as organized as possible regarding this so people can respond easily. There needs to be discussion; talking through a problem is how it gets resolved.<br />
:1) Let me start by saying, right away, that this business of speaking entirely through text has been very messy. It's incredibly difficult to tell, especially when people speak in such a high-brow manner (as I am now, because of the atmosphere and perceived standard of discourse), someone's disposition. I would like to think I've simply been misinterpreting how admins feel, but my current perception is that Green Dragon, ConcealedLight, and ConcealedWife think users like myself or Varkarrus are peons not worth talking to or listening to, and our opinions, arguments, and emotions mean nothing, logical or not. There seems to be a great deal of bias being thrown around, and after Geodude told me that this wiki does not operate strictly according to written policy, like a bureaucracy would, my fear as only deepened in this regard. I don't want to remain in an environment where I feel as though my role is to not ask questions and pump out content that will then go on to not be respected, because that's exactly what seems to be developing here.<br />
:2) Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor. I can see there was some discussion about whether grammar or balance help was a significant contribution, but the fact that the term is undefined means that any admin can interpret it on a case by case basis and use the term to exercise power for power's sake. I would argue that this has happened on [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages, where there seems to be perceived value to the wiki in holding the work hostage by using ambiguous wording in policy and baseless personal desire to override goodwill and reason. The logical solution for the latter two pages would have been to honor the deletion request and simply recreate them with a new author, balanced and done as admin and other users seem to desire. Instead, both pages have been altered against authorial intent (which goes against the spirit and letter of the editing policy), and are being argued over and defended as if a little goblin has tried to steal gold from a dragon's hoard.<br />
:3) I'm concerned that it's possible for a user, regardless of rank or status, to swoop in when an article has been requested for deletion - not abandoned or purposefully put up for adoption - and begin editing it and cutting it up in an attempt to become a significant contributor to block the deletion request. It comes off as either petty or as a coordinated behind-the-scenes effort to hold a page hostage, and it's positively abhorrent that it's allowed or possible at all. In such a case where users are invested in such content, the logical solution, again, would have been to simply delete the page and start anew with a new author and a more collaborative effort based on the work of the previous author. Inspired works like that are created all the time, after all, and the license this wiki uses gives it that kind of wiggle room. (As an added note, there is no point during account creation until preparing to hit the "save changes" button where the license is presented. Even then, it is a tiny footnote, practically an after-thought, and nowhere is a user required to agree to the license in order to sign up or edit anonymously. Based on existing court cases involving places like Wikipedia, and precedents set, that puts this wiki on very thin legal ice.)<br />
:4) Finally, I would like to ask that there be an addition of some kind of definition for "significant" contributions and the like. If a page is comprised of the edits from the author to the tune of tens of thousands of bytes, and other community members have only fixed some grammar or changed a number or two, adding up to bytes numbering in the tens to low hundreds, I hardly see how that's grounds for calling them primary contributors on par with the author. Instead, it would make perfect sense if other users had helped define the page's flavor text, such as adding history to a race when the author had none, or adding new features or traits, etc. If such things were discussed in the talk page and the additions were made by the author, but the changes were discussed by multiple users and it was just the author who happened to be the one to update the page, that, too, would make sense to call a collaborative effort. The latter two pages I've linked do not fall under those cases - or didn't until this morning, which I've previously addressed.<br />
:I'm a creator here as well, just like Varkarrus. The volume of my created pages pales in comparison, but the fact remains that these rules affect me as well. As of yet, I haven't added anything to the wiki that either isn't already copyrighted material (submitted under Fair Use, of course), or that I'm extremely attached to as an original creation. That is not the case for Varkarrus, as I understand it. This wiki ended up being a great platform for organizing, editing, and publicizing original works, as well as those inspired by Wizards of the Coast content or folklore. The fact that such works are effectively being held down for no other reason than not wanting to let them go, or not wanting to do the work to recreate them in spiritual successor pages, baffles me to no end, and stifles any desire I had to become a part of this community and work with others to create collaborative and original content on the platform.<br />
:The behavior I've seen jump out of nowhere, which I am only invested in because I was invested in the content of pages that were requested to be deleted, has spiraled into discussions that are going nowhere, and reprehensible behavior on all sides. I know a lot of people can't believe someone would put this much effort into something solely for a thankless task for the sake of someone else, so I cite that I'm a creator with self-interest in the precedents set in this matter to ease such people's suspicions. I doubt that will be enough. <br />
:I've provided as much context and as many arguments as I can think of at the moment, but the fact is that I am mentally and emotionally fried after trying to fight this. I've been constantly angry for almost 48 hours, at what I see as great injustice at the hands of people in power who don't appear to care about the effect their actions are having on others, and it's not healthy for me. Since being objective and logical clearly isn't the only welcome talk on this wiki given the actions of other users recently, I feel like that is also important context. I can only hope that my tone in this message hasn't come across as angry; I'm tired, sad, exasperated, and concerned, but this is the only thing I can think to do to try and pull the discussion to one relevant location and try to talk about it as calmly and openly as possible. As the entire thing hinges on deletion requests and policy, this seemed to be the best place for it.<br />
:Please, I hope we can have a discussion about this and be rational. I want to see goodwill shown, not contempt or frustration, on my part or anyone else's. I just want this to end so I can stop talking about it, stop watching all these pages, and finally step away. It's just not in me to let it go until it's been resolved, and I can't consider something resolved if either or both parties simply square their shoulders, plant their feet, and refuse to change their minds or accept that they might be wrong about something. If I've misunderstood policy, or misinterpreted actions of other users - if I'm demonstrably wrong, I want to know so I can move on. I'd like to think everyone else here is the same. I look forward to working with you all in this matter. {{Unsigned|Max7238}}<br />
<br />
::In light of recent events, I agree that there should be added a better definition for "significant contribution" as it relates to this policy. I've already seen several users (including at least one admin) deliberately abuse this wording for what was obviously not the intent. I would seek to not let that happen again.<br />
::That said, I fear consensus on what constitutes a significant contribution would be difficult to reach. Even if consensus was reached, chances to me seem high that would be ignored by two or more admins. Even so, at the very least, I would have assumed most of us would agree that "significant contributions" do not include (1) any number of edits deliberately marked as a minor edit or (2) any amount of formatting/spellchecking that doesn't actually change the game effects or story elements of the content. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 15:52, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really wish I had more time but before it’s too late I wanted to say thanks for posting somewhere that brings it all together. I also cannot disagree with Guy. For the most part Max either but not here to argue Max. I also want to point out the shame of Vark’s work being unrecognized except for half a dozen pieces until Vark decided enough was enough and wanted to pull their Vark. Now it’s like a mad dash to edit each page. Where the gosh darn bleeping bleeping bleep was everyone the entire time she’s been a user in this wiki and only got feedback if it I was a race (because CL touches them all) or a FAN? I am flabbergasted by the behavior. It really makes it hard to believe the wiki deletion is being used in good faith by the wiki itself. Any how, only a couple hours a day of free WiFi to even log on for this. Cheers! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 20:42, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have two points to make. Firstly, we are also forgetting that this is supposed to be a ''speedy'' deletion. If we make it a 2 week thing, it leaves it open for someone to come in and make a big edit, nullifying the deletion rationale. If the page qualifies, it needs to be deleted ''straight away''. <br />
::::Secondly, the G7 proposal has to be made in good faith. Here are examples of G7 rationales (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion]): <br />
::::*"You're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content"<br />
::::*"you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with."<br />
::::*"you just screwed up and created a page with a title like User:User:Example"<br />
::::To this I also add:<br />
::::*You're making a page and learn that the site's license isn't appropriate for you (e.g. you wish to retain copyright).<br />
::::Asking for your page to be deleted out of spite because you've had some falling out with another user is ''not'' in good faith and is not a G7 rationale.<br />
::::Finally, I will add that it's Green Dragon's site and he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't deleted, regardless of guidelines. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's "supposed to be a speedy deletion"? According to our policy as currently written, "request of sole significant contributor" is the 2-week thing, [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help:Deletion_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=1092641 or as GamerAim put it, "the CfD process."]<br />
:::::Marasmusine, you are referencing Wikipedia's criteria again. This policy page itself was written so we don't rely on Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia's policy is designed for an encyclopedia of undisputed facts, not for original creative writing. We don't have G7. We have our own deletion policy, which was written and readjusted (and re-re-adjusted) over the course of months by several prominent users. <s>It would be nice if the page wasn't locked so I could correct some of the minor problems introduced through all these readjustments but that's beside the point.</s> If sole-significant should in fact be speedy deletion instead of the 2-week thing, then this policy should be edited to portray that instead of contradicting it.<br />
:::::If "good faith" is a requirement for "request of sole significant contributor," then that should be added to our policy as well. I am not sure if I agree with that personally. 'Good faith' seems extremely ambiguous when it comes to original creations, and too much ambiguity seems like it's part of the problem right now. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 07:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::First and foremost, if Green Dragon is the "ultimate arbiter" of what is done, regardless of any policy whatsoever, then why is there policy written at all? If it's a space for ''anyone'' to just do whatever they want, I'm ''pretty'' sure that should just be explicitly stated, and done so upon account creation or trying to edit the wiki at all. I'm also ''positive'' that I'll never create another page on this wiki, and that I'm about done editing anything but talk pages.<br />
::::::Second, can someone please direct the rest of admin to this page, so we can hear from them? ConcealedWife is having a field day with one of the pages, now, too. I could understand a user, or an IP, doing something like this, but if I'm expected to believe that what amounts to the staff of the wiki are allowed to conduct themselves in this way and not have it raise every red flag in the book, it would go a long way in convincing me that policy is indeed moot, and that this is simply Green Dragon's domain to do with as he sees fit... Including appoint friends to do as they see fit, so long as the only toes they step on don't belong to him.<br />
::::::Third, I was told to sit by and wait, and only respond if everyone else did first, but this is all just too much to watch. BigShot made an excellent point; you can just look at the history of some of these pages and plainly see that until Varkarrus wanted them gone, almost no one cared. Now there's uproar among a very small crowd to "save the pages?" Or do what, exactly? Why else would people, especially administration, suddenly pop out of the woodwork to start mass edits of a page that one of the users they're supposed to help protect requested to be deleted? After the behavior in the Discord, which I was told repeatedly is unofficial, despite being created and run by the same people, under the same name as this website, where I saw incredible amounts of contempt and disrespect being thrown around, seeing this illustrates perfectly that this wiki is not the environment to remain in if one is a creator in any capacity. Unfortunately, I can't request that my own pages be deleted, because then I'd receive the same treatment!<br />
::::::Finally, it's too late to rewrite policy for this. I'm sure it will only change after the fact, if it does at all. As written, right now, it can easily be interpreted to not only ''allow'' this behavior, but encourage it. And, based on the behavior I'm seeing, that makes a select group of people very happy to swing it like a cudgel at anyone in the way of them doing as they please. It's impossible to have a discussion about any of this, any of what's going on, and not sound disrespectful or "uncivil," but I can promise you I'm doing my best while being more angry and frustrated than I've been in months - or years. As policy stands, and as long as the aforementioned actions continue, I can think nothing else of this entire site but "get out as soon as possible."<br />
::::::When this is all over, regardless of the conclusion, you'll never see me active on this wiki again. I'm sure that will ''also'' make some people very happy - others maybe not - but I'm not even going to go as far as requesting my works be deleted for any reason. My pages here are either already copyrighted material, submitted under fair use, or cool ideas I had that I wanted to show to friends and thought the public might like. I'm nobody on this wiki, so I guess being blown off shouldn't surprise me. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 08:40, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Then this shows why "user requests deletion" ''should'' be a speedy criteria per how Wikipedia handles it. It either meets the uncontroversial criteria for deletion, or it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be deleted (as the author has published it under the free document license). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I've moved our replies to [[#Speedy deletion for author requests]], so as not to detract from the other points brought up by Max7238. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have a policy, that puts our work behind our actions. Saying that an admin really cares about a page so much as to circumvent policy is not what is happening. As admins we should not blindly trust users, so going through a list of pages to see if they match our deletion policy is not only impartial, it's also necessary. It's apparent that you have very little experience in situations like this, and your wish to never submit anything to D&D Wiki only makes me question your expertise more, and if you are really the right person to get ideas from. It's beneficial for us to work with users who have hurdled over even the toughest of situations, and not users without experience but some ideas. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Let me start by saying that I answered in the section below first. With that out of the way, I next need to say that I call em as I see em, and actions speak a lot louder than words. I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality. That quality did not always come from collaborative work. I already cited the relevant pages where, obviously, it became a collaboration and those pages should remain. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of her created pages are, or were, being edited like mad in what seemed to be clear cases of bad faith. One user had simply not seen the discussion and started edits, and I've already cleared that up in your absence. Another user completely threw out authorial intent, and went so far as to state in edit messages that they would pretty much completely rewrite a page, which had little purpose other than ousting the original author as the SSC.<br />
::::::::::I ''don't'' want to submit here anymore. Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat ''maybe'' twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.<br />
::::::::::You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to. I'm a user of the wiki. I've been lurking for the better part of two years. I've got a degree in law, I specifically went out of my way to study digital law, cyber security, social inequality, and sociology (down to specifics like globalization) for my electives. I'm not here for some faceless entity over the internet to question who and what I am, because the fact is that it doesn't change the argument. It doesn't change that policy as written is flawed and rife with opportunity for abuse - abuse that has been occurring these past few days. If that policy does not change, then no, I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun. There's no point in getting invested in anything I post on this wiki that isn't being submitted under Fair Use, because the instant it's here, based on your actions and the actions of other admin, it's yours now. Even following the spirit of policy rather than the letter, only the Maralith and Lich pages should remain. That we're having this discussion at ''all'' should be plenty of evidence that there's a problem. It wouldn't go on this long if there wasn't!<br />
::::::::::It's beneficial for you to work with people who give a care. It's beneficial for a public resource like this to harness the potential of those who pass through it. It's beneficial for this wiki to welcome creativity and ''respect'' it. That's not being done right now. I care too much about everything, and I know that. I have a great deal of potential to ''help'' you (and you all, because written English is weird), and I want to. And creativity is ''not'' being welcomed or respected as long as it's within the realm of possibility for this discussion to occur. You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website." As it stands, it's now plain to see that that license is being abused to allow the hoarding of information under a single banner without regard for the creator's wishes. It's just there so you avoid being sued in as many situations as possible, and to be cited when you don't want to let a page go - that's what the actions are stating, loud and clear.<br />
::::::::::Please stay on topic, as personal attacks are a fallacy and have no place in intellectual debate. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:51, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I have already gone through all these deletion requests. Please give some examples of what you want, because this work has already been done by me.<br />
:::::::::::I have quoted our editing policy verbatim, bit I guess you didn't read it? Are works submitted to D&D Wiki to be edited mercilessly and copied at will? <br />
:::::::::::This is the first time I have had any contact with your user. Your contributions speak for your experience. It's not an insult, it's just as simple as looking through your user contributions.<br />
:::::::::::If you just want to submit your ''crap'' here then, frankly, I don't want anything to do with any policy that you would ''crap out''.<br />
:::::::::::Please supply references to your claims, and if you are doing research please don't take quotes from {{user|Marasmusine}} out of context. I already stated which users I prefer to work with. I don't think it's too hard for you to lay out some of this sweat so that we can get to the core of what everyone wants.<br />
:::::::::::And anyone who could get sued is the user who re-licenses an already oublished work. Please read and quote the GNU FDL (and start go deeper into all the discussions that have already answered this question). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::: *''"Based on conversation and policy, aside from [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lich_(5e_Class) these] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Marilith_(5e_Race) two] pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor."''<br />
::::::::::::There's also the matter of the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Light_Beam_(5e_Spell) Light Beam] page being reverted, despite the author being the SSC.<br />
::::::::::: *''"This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this."''<br />
::::::::::::I wasn't aware that what pretty much amounts to an informal blurb there was part of policy. Even if it is, it does not say you agree to using the license, nor does it say you lose the copyright to the work. It says "your writing" which could be anything from your flavor to whatever else, is vague and reminiscent of government policy passed with the express purpose of giving a government too much power over something.<br />
::::::::::: *''"...assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about."''<br />
::::::::::::Having just received a warning, from you, no less, only to return to this page and see that you are also engaging in such behavior: taunting or baiting me, which is a matter of interpretation (I interpreted your statement about experience to be such, but I can't warn you for it), and quoting users out of context, such as using my colloquial usage of "crap" to insult my propositions and position on this debate.<br />
::::::::::::If I was quoting Mara, especially out of context, I apologize. It wasn't my intention, and if I did, I didn't realize. Your preference is all well and good, but again, it has no bearing on the debate at hand. I've already provided sources in the original post for this particular section of the debate (sorry I neglected to create a new section, but I was also so flustered that I didn't even sign the original post). If you're looking for specific demands, it would be, to restate for the umpteenth time on this page alone, to have a clearer definition of terms used in order to close loopholes that may be abused by users acting to keep a creator from exercising their rights; and, to reinstate the deletion requests, and honor said requests, of Varkarrus where they were valid to begin with, such as, again, [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tarrasqin_(5e_Race) both] [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race) these] pages and the aforementioned Light Beam page. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have already responded on these talk pages. Your reasons are wrong, but you are still trying to make them your argument here?<br />
:Again, read the GNU FDL, look at previous discussions, and you must also understand that IP addresses use the same terminology as if you had created an account.<br />
:You have less than 500 edits, and you are trying to implement a far reaching policy based on how you perceive the situation? Again, I would expect to be working with a more experienced user here, probably no less than 3000 edits.<br />
:You said ''"... I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun."'' so how is your work on this policy not 'throwaway crap'? It's not a misquote, it's your logic, actions, and words exactly.<br />
:Maybe it's because you have less than 500 edits, but it's not a debate to win and lose. Have you even read [[w:Wikipedia:Consensus]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Can you explain why they're wrong, since you want to state that so plainly? I think this is simply a matter of us having different definitions of what a "major contribution" is... Which is sort of the point of this entire discussion, isn't it?<br />
::I have, I have, I do.<br />
::Irrelevant, again. Someone with no edits could just as easily come in and read all this and have the conversation as someone with a million. The difference is whether they have the foresight to understand what the chances will do, and if I haven't demonstrated that yet, I'd be glad to.<br />
::Yes, that is what I said. It's good thing I'm not the one able to edit deletion policy, then, isn't it? Sarcasm aside, you know full well it isn't, you're just continuing to mischaracterize my statement and use it to try and bait me, which, again, no one can warn you for, so you're free to violate your own behavioral policy as you wish. If you find the time, please, look at the pages I've created. Maybe they aren't balanced correctly, which I readily admit, but that's why I was posting them and requesting review - but they aren't just the kind of thing someone could come up with off the top of their heads, throw on the wiki, and walk away thinking they were the greatest creator ever. None of my pages are nominated for FA or QA, and I wouldn't nominate myself unless I felt I deserved it, and I don't. I have a long way to go to be as good as the rest of those articles.<br />
::I hadn't no, but now I have, thank you. As it happens, there's more in there to support me, so I appreciate it. Based on everything I'm seeing right now, actually, you seem to be the only one who ''doesn't'' agree at this point. I'd like to continue going about convincing you, but you don't seem very receptive to conversation for some reason. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 23:45, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Speedy deletion for author requests==<br />
In regards to speedy deletion, I'm not sure I follow.<br/><br />
Several times now user-requested-deletion has been '''very''' controversial. Once when I was an admin, I deleted a page that had three reasons for deletion&mdash;including the user requesting deletion in good faith&mdash;but not only was that deletion overturned by another admin, it seemingly caused extreme ire towards me from that admin. Especially with the current vagueness of "significant contribution," the 14 day period allows there to be discussion if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then I don't really see the problem with keeping it for 14 days, especially if it can prevent unintended controversy and ire.<br/><br />
Having the 14 day grace period serves another purpose: it lets anyone who wants to save the content do so. I know {{User|Quincy}} has done so with several deleted pages, and I don't see a strong enough reason not to let that happen, either.<br/><br />
If my own perspective and judgement here fails to convince, Green Dragon commented on this very page back in October, as follows. "It has ''always'' been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page." - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:05, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:"Saving" content by making edits is a problem. When I made edits at [[:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)]] this was seen as a bad-faith attempt to negate the author's request. It is also a problem if an author wishes to withdraw their work because they misunderstood the license and wish to retain their copyright. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I should have been more clear. When I wrote "saving" content, I meant either (1) copying it into a text file for personal use, or (2) creating a copy in one's userspace with the author's permission. I agree that editing a page to negate deletion request is likely to be problematic. That is best discouraged, but in light of my preceding comments, I don't believe speedy deletion is the best way to discourage that. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I agree that there simply shouldn't be speedy deletion unless the page was unfinished and only had one contributor: the author. Other people may be invested in a page even if the author was unaware (someone could have it in their watch-list, using it for a character already, and you get no notification of the "follow"). I would argue that pages should be soft-locked to some extent while the discussion proceeds. It allows everyone, not just administration and/or the author to voice their take on things, consolidate context, save the contents of the page as a back-up or for Fair Use recreation, etc, etc. Between that and actually defining "primary contributor" or "major contribution" I think this page would improve vastly. If you lock the page, allow the discussion to proceed, investigate the history and talk page, and it can be determined using those new definitions that the author was, in fact, the primary contributor or the ''only'' contributor, it doesn't make sense for there to be extensive discussion. As I said, and as others have said long before me, in those cases, the page can just be created anew following the license terms and copyright law. If reaction videos on YouTube can be protected, and AMVs can be protected, there's no reason that a re-imagined page on a wiki couldn't be too. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:38, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::There [[:Template:Locked_Page|is precedent]] for contributors requesting a page they created to be locked, of course. That seems like it could be a good option to employ.<br />
::::I'm unsure about the correlation between YouTube videos and D&D Wiki content. Despite that, I believe it would be fair to assume that an author's deletion request can also be assumed to be a request for page protection. If we keep the 14 day grace period, then I would advocate for including into our policy. Maybe something like this could replace what is currently under [[Help:Deletion_Policy#Request_of_sole_significant_contributor|request of sole significant contributor]]?<br />
{{quote|The sole significant contributor ("SSC") of a page can request its deletion using the [[#Proposed Deletion|deletion proposal]] process. For the purpose of this criteria, the SSC retains this privilege until another user makes a significant contribution to the page. As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way. Any edit(s) deliberately marked as a minor edit is never considered a significant contribution.<br />
<br />
<s>If the SSC informally requests deletion, another user can propose deletion on their behalf.</s><br />
<br />
If when the SSC requests deletion the page meets other criteria for [[#Speedy Deletion|Speedy Deletion]], an admin may speedily delete it, but otherwise the 14-day period normally afforded for [[#Proposed Deletion|Proposed Deletion]] should be retained.<br />
<br />
During the 14-day period, an admin may exercise the option to protect or "lock" the page from further edits, so as to not stir up controversy regarding content that may soon be deleted. Regardless of protection, the corresponding talk page should be used for any warranted discussion or dissent instead of the content page itself, as with all deletion proposals.<br />
<br />
As content contributed to D&D Wiki is released under the [[Help:Legal|GNU Free Documentation License 1.3]], there is no inherent or special protection afforded to a page's content even if the SSC requests deletion. Nonetheless, it is courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of this deleted content regardless of why the SSC requested deletion.}}<br />
<br />
::::It's more complex than would be ideal, but this is the most succinct way I've found to address all points that have been brought up regarding this criteria. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:11, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: <s>I have never understood why “author’s request” deletions are forced to go through the fortnight grace period and previous attempts to get {{user|Green Dragon}} to explain have been futile. I’m completely fine with having “author request” be a valid criterion for speedy deletion. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:14, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</s><br />
::::::Actually, it seems like exactly what the scenario calls for. Complex or not, it needs to be written clearly and cover as many cases as possible, which I believe your draft here does. If this had existed prior to the current controversy, it would have been avoided entirely, I think. The 14 days was addressed earlier, and I see no reason for that part to change; it gives everyone, even the SSC, time to back-up the page, and time for others to discuss its removal. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Geodude, I feel you are implying there is no reason why. Let me be more straightforward with the reasons I provided.<br />
:::::::*14 days enables anyone actively using the content to download it without screwing over their character/campaign. Let's not forget that's the primary purpose of content: to actually be used. It's entirely possible someone has a tarrasqin character they are using in a monthly or biweekly campaign; deleting their race without warning not only screws them, but discourages people from actually using our site for its intended purpose.<br />
:::::::*14 days affords discussion of any matter an admin may not have considered with speedy deletion. E.g., the content is integral to a campaign setting or a ruleset, or there are dissenting but valid opinions on how "significant" seemingly insignificant contributions are, among other possibilities.<br />
:::::::Do you believe these reasons are not significant enough? - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 12:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::You are correct, Guy; I was under the impression that the only reason was because the owner said so. Now that you’ve demonstrated that there ''are'' valid reasons, I’ve retracted my previous comment, and support your proposed changes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:37, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing another user other than the SSC to PfD a page. This is too vague, and it puts the ultimate responsibility in a place where I don't want it to be.<br />
:::::::::I disagree with allowing these pages to be speedily deleted. I don't like the idea of making admins go through the added stress and workload of checking histories, user contributions, reasons, etc etc in such a short time. As {{user|Marasmusine}} so well pointed out, these PfDs are not in good faith, so why pile all these tasks onto the people doing the work?<br />
:::::::::Why should the pages be locked? Our contributions specifically state "''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.''" So this seems to just be the wish of some user (without the experience) getting implemented. I don't see this as at all necessary, we have histories and a user base who have their own interests and that is not to make the SSC feel alienated.<br />
:::::::::I would expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::I can't say I agree with that either. Another user could simply come along during a time when the SSC was, say, moving and had no internet, and the page would be gone when they got back.<br />
::::::::::I also can't say I agree with that being the case for ''speedy'' deletion, but checking histories and everything else mentioned ''should'' be the kind of work that goes into this. It's also unfair to say that the requests for deletion that sparked this conversation aren't in "good faith," when not only is that statement undefined, but administration has also been acting in bad faith until yesterday. Proving intent is a sticky situation to get into, and short of pulling up private Discord conversations to prove the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do to argue it. Furthermore, because the SSC to the pages in question wouldn't keep her mouth shut like I asked, she's been blocked for a week. That means she can't renew her requests, only admin like yourself can reinstate the previous request if it is found to be valid retroactively.<br />
::::::::::I will agree, and fight for the notion, that pages should be locked when requested for deletion by a user who, until that very moment, was the sole significant contributor. Regardless of interest or intent, alienation is exactly what is happening right now. This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this. The licensing blurb should be fleshed out, yes. There should be a portion of user sign-up that presents the license and requires agreement, yes. The fact is that editing a page that was requested for deletion in an effort to block the request is pretty much the definition of "in bad faith."<br />
::::::::::Finally, before I go ahead and answer your other statement above, I'll state here as well that assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:18, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The now crossed out portion is already performed when appropriate, so I suppose there isn't any benefit to point out it's a possibility.<br />
<br />
I rewrote the paragraph regarding locks to be extra clear that it's just an option an admin can choose to employ if it seems beneficial. I can't edit the policy itself anyway, so I expect if an admin copies my entry that bit can be removed anyway <br />
<br />
One would "expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out"? To be frank, I'm not a fan of how that was phrased... I'm a volunteer here, not an intern or an employee. <br />
But anyway, if it is to be expanded somehow, what should be included? The wikilink there is meant to cover anything relevant to legal issues. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:48, 3 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Good Faith" ==<br />
<br />
I've seen, I think, some controversy around deleting articles for the unspecified personal reasons of the authors based on "good faith." I'd just like to say that I think there's so much controversy because the policy in itself is not good faith. I think that, when a user tried to have their content removed, other users - myself included - take it as an attack on D&D Wiki. After all, it's akin - in my own words - to donating something to Goodwill and then stealing it back, usually - in my experience - because the checkout girl smart-mouthed you.<br />
<br />
This is to say that I don't really fault anyone for invoking this clause, because it's in the rules, but that the clause will always incite conflict. A user who invokes it will be seen as throwing toys out the pram, whereas users who try to see the article are - in my experience - seen as acting in bad faith to undermine the deletion request. And that, I feel is the problem: improving articles is being viewed in bad faith by default. A user editing an article, especially to improve it, should ''always'' be assumed to be in good faith. But that doesn't seem to be the case, here, nor do I think it has ''ever'' been the case even before this clause was codified.<br />
<br />
Further complicating - or, perhaps, clarifying - matters is that some users (I've seen [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] name checked a few times) are preserving this content themselves on user pages. I heard an unverified rumor that Varkarrus offered to backup "her" articles as a .pdf for other users to save after deletion. What this all means - to me - is that users still want this content around. They still view it as worthwhile and valuable. Even the authors did, or else why did they initially post it here? If the authors agreed to host it here, and users still want it, keeping it around should be good faith, not deleting it.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, my analysis of the situation and the clause is that the clause is not in good faith, nor is any invocation of it in good faith. It is - in my analysis - a bad faith move, and the clause should be revoked. At the very least, there were fewer arguments about "good faith" deletions before this clause...--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race)&diff=1181101Talk:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)2019-06-04T20:15:36Z<p>GamerAim: /* Deletion */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Quality Article Nomination==<br />
{{Quality Article Nominee|[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
Okay, barring this being a featured article, it's ''at least'' worthy of being a quality article, assuming I put an image up, no?<br />
<br />
:I anticipated that QAs are pages ready to be dropped into any campaign. If there is a design disclaimer then it needs some examination to see if it suitable. If the detachable head is the thing that DMs need to be careful with, then ''that'' should be a Variant (uh oh, it going to be a variant of a variant) in the same way that the core rulebooks handle variants that use optional rules. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point there Mara. This should ideally be addressed before the nominations continue further. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've had a stab at doing this, although I would also like to rework the actual mechanics of the Cursed variant too. I also moved the Outcast variant to variants, since it's a variant. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Your "stab" has damaged the race considerably. Without the blindsight, the body cannot fight without its head without suffering disadvantage to all attacks, no matter how close to the enemy it is. The race cannot lose its head because it can summon the head to the body, which negates the author-intended use of the head as a risk factor and possible plot point in a module, one-shot, or campaign. The only change you've made that isn't completely out of left field is removing the subrace classifications. The removal, however, doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the race, it's just changing terminology.<br />
::::No, actually, even worse, you've removed any reference to the ''Call Steed'' cantrip created specifically for this race to use, and therefore also removed the intended investment the character should have in a singular creature as their bonded-for-life-steed. You've also removed the ability for the head to rest on the shoulders of the body, which negates the race's ability to blend in with other mortals who might be unfamiliar with the race. One could argue ''that'' is a substantial addition, if they prefer to be recognized immediately, and therefore most likely have a tougher time in RP. Furthermore, I just realized you removed ''all'' mentions of blindsight, not just for the regular version with its head, making the variants completely useless in combat or even navigating their environment. The entire thing is completely chopped up and ruined in this state. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Hi<br />
:::::*I have tried to remove the implication that the body and head are two separate creatures, which is the Design Disclaimer issue that would prevent this from being a QA.<br />
:::::*I removed the blindsight because being able to bypass invisibility, illusions and hiding creatures (even at 10 feet) is very powerful at 1st level.<br />
:::::*"The body" (i.e., you) fights normally since you draw line of sight to your head. You would have disadvantage if you are trying to attack something that is not in the line of sight to your head, which is a fair tradeoff for the versatility of being able to put your head somewhere else.<br />
:::::*Call Steed. This spell is up for deletion, so I tried to find alternatives. Furthermore, I have problems with call steed's balance. A ''cantrip'' that increases a beast's Intelligence to 6 and establishes a telepathic link?<br />
:::::*You can deride the reformatting of the variants if you want but it's something that needed doing.<br />
:::::*I had considered the placing of the head on the shoulders, but I also was interested in what was possible if it wasn't allowed. The rationale of "blending in with other mortals" is a little moot considering the extraordinary appearance of many other player races. In any event this is trivial to add back in.<br />
:::::*I ''already stated'' that I need to look at the cursed variant's mechanics. Maybe it will have blindsight, maybe it won't, please hold off on your complaints until I've actually done this.<br />
:::::Finally, the mantra of wikis is "be bold"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold], since anything can be undone. Good-faith edits should not be shamed with comments like "damaging the race" and "chopped up and ruined". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:47, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Edit: I just read through the Cursed variant and there's nothing saying that you would be blind, so I don't understand the complaint that it doesn't have blindsight. I was careful to state that the variant's features replaced the decapitated trait, so the restriction of "only draw line of sight to your head" does not apply. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having playtested the race myself on more than once occasion... There was no implication that they were separate creatures, just a caveat that certain spells might not affect both unless they were both in range. Blindsight does not pass invisibility, illusions, or hiding creatures unless the creature ''with'' blindsight makes a check (actively attempts to do so), like any other creature would. Bypassing those things is what Truesight is for. One of the main points of the race was to be able to have your head be elsewhere while your body could still fight, which was meant to cover for a wide variety of situations - which it did, in playtest. Being able to instantly recall your head to your body completely negates the majority of the draw and risk of choosing to play the race, which was what made it fun to begin with. Call Steed IS up for deletion, you're right, so I can't argue with wanting to find alternatives; however, it was included to serve the part of the idea where a dullahan was expected (culturally) to bond with a single mount for life and be able to communicate with it much like a real life person can do with a trained animal, hence the increased INT. I can also understand changing the classification of subrace to variant. I find it hard to see the edits as good-faith when the page was requested for deletion, then the template was removed prematurely despite it qualifying for deletion based on policy, and now another user is suddenly interested and attempting to become a primary contributor to block the page's deletion. If you had, for example, created a new race page and used 2nd Variant, as I've seen done before, you could easily make all your desired changes and request that page be QA, and I bet you'd get it because yours would be closer in line to officially published content. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:00, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::*The invisibility condition says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. Blindsight is a special sense. Blindsight also says that you perceive your surroundings without relying on sight. Any obscurement that relies on sight is therefore overcome. <br />
::::::::*You can still play as not being able to summon your head, if you look at the text I added to the Cursed variant.<br />
::::::::*There was no deletion proposal message on the page when I made my edits, so I was unaware that there was a deletion proposal or the reasons for it. Your allegations against me are unfair and I'm sorely tempted to bring it up as a [[Help:Behavioral Policy|civility]] issue. <br />
::::::::*Having said that, I am completely open to starting a new page and putting my version there instead, if there is a concensus for it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I must have been thinking of the below argument about illusions; you're right about the invisibility. Out of combat that might be an issue, but in terms of stopping a surprise attack from an invisible creature, the creature would still technically approach and attack off-turn, surprising you anyway. It would be impossible to become Cursed under your conditions, since you can summon your head, so it would be strange to be without it for ten days unless you were rendered unconscious for that long somehow. I had assumed you would have done your research, and part of that assumption was that you were aware of the huge issue now surrounding Varkarrus' desire to leave the wiki along with the pages they've created. My assumption, then, caused me to mischaracterize your edits as above. Not only would I support the creation of a new page to maintain the integrity of this one, but I would gladly help edit in any way necessary and playtest like I did with this one - without making any claim to the page, in the event you ever wanted it deleted. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::You can't summon your head if you choose the Cursed variant: that whole variant is now for if you want the style of play originally intented.<br />
::::::::::I will petition to Green Dragon that I create a new Dullahan page with all new text/traits and ask him to reconsider the deletion of this page. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Featured Article Nomination==<br />
{{Failed Featured Article Nominee|{{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
I believe this article is worthy of being a featured article. It's got it all: fleshed out and detailed lore, interesting new game mechanics, versatility, balance, fluff, and a nice piece of artwork to round it off. It's been a few weeks since the last major edit, and a full month since the initial concept, too. Maybe it could use a few touchups, and the nomination process really brings out the search for where those can go. Whaddya say, folks? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have failed this nomination after two months of no discussion and no consensus formed. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' Seems pretty shit imo. I don't see how this is a race or a people, maybe a racial class or smth. Like, how they are linked to the Feywild? and how does this plays off or uses any of the actual Dullahan besides the headless horsemen gimmick? You should try giving your "races" more character before submitting for this featured thing or whatever and making such claims in your intro. <br />
:Everyone is entitled to their opinions but telling someone their idea is "pretty shit" & "they should try giving etc" is unacceptable. Please check out [[Help:Behavioral Policy]] or ask questions if this is a problem. I issued an <s>IP</s> block for this, account creation enabled if you wish to register and contribute politely and constructively. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' I've been meaning to give this nomination a review for some time now but its overall unconventionality makes it difficult to formulate the issues with this page and so I've been avoiding it. However, while there are a few more general issues here, I'm more concerned about the significant issue of splitting the PC into two entities and then applying a plethora of tedious rule specifications so that that entity can function. I think that if you have to change how the game functions at a basic level for the sake of one player's homebrew, then that homebrew doesn't eloquently work with the standards of the game. Furthermore, if that you need to read five separate rule specifications for each of your PC's races alone then it applies further workload for the DM and as far as fixing some of the issues with this race, I imagine this list of rule specification will only get bigger and more tiresome. As such, due to the tedious and centrally flawed nature of the race, I will be opposing this nomination until it can be reworked. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:59, 1 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
: Okay, I don't want to sound biased but I think your reasoning for opposing the FA nomination sets a worrying and dangerous precedent. Your reason for opposing this article as FA is the exact same reason why I nominated it in the first place. I very strongly feel that homebrew, whether in D&D, or other games, should break convention! Experimenting with game mechanics is fun and can lead to interesting results! So, sure, the Dullahan requires a few errata (and let's face it, there isn't many and they're easy to remember) to make the disembodied head work... but, if you were playing D&D as a Dullahan, with a competent GM who is easily able to keep track of said errata, wouldn't that be a fun experience with a lot of potential for the kinds of shenanigans that make D&D fun? That's for an experienced super-organized GM though, if the rules are too clunky for more mundane GMs (and I really don't think they are), the fact that the experience would be fun and interesting means that it'd be worth the effort to make it work vs abandoning it entirely. Either way, GMs are under no obligation to allow a homebrew concept even if it's a D&Dwiki featured article, and I feel there's going to need to be a community-wide discussion on how conventional a piece of D&D homebrew needs to be in order to be allowed as a featured article. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:45, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment''' Overall I think this is written well and has the right amount of information a feature article needs. It has things I really like too. Fey, it has flavor and isn't just throwing two creature types on there being all bland. Like, I want to support this article simply because it doesn't do what so many articles with two types did. Lifestyle choice is cool. Different, and interesting. But this kind of sums up my feels on most the traits. Just very unsure of them. Blindsight on the body, I think I get it? But if the body and head have a telepathic bond, I don't think you need Blindsight. Which, in regards to the head/body relationship, there's no limit to how far the head can go? Personally not a fan of this but I can see it being in the realm of "Rule of Cool". The head specifically with its temporary hit points and shared pool with the body is interesting. Again, traits that I'm just unsure of. Temp HP is my fav mechanic right now. I'm not sure how it feel about it here, combined with unconventional AC calculation which it too is another bundle of neat sprinkled with, hmmm different. I'd be more inclined to use normal AC calc for the head, force the player to protect thing as much as possible. Be afraid to not be one unit. With all that, I think its great something different has been presented. It follows right along with 5e philosophy and design to add something new to the game, not just rehash and reuse existing material. For me, it is just a little too different. I don't want to impede the articles success just because my hesitation though. Good luck with the nomination. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Can confirm. There's no limit on how far the head and body can be from each other. Right now, that even extends to other planes. If that's a bit excessive it could be tuned down, but the potential for a dullahan's head to be separated from their body by long distances has lots of potential for stories, and player schemes: sending a dullahan's head to fly down a tunnel to scout ahead without being seen / fly over obstacles that can't be walked over, to deliver messages. Or the dullahan's head could be captured by foes, and the body blindly writes down what the villain is saying... or the reverse; a villain unfamiliar with a dullahan's flying head chained their body but their head is escaping to find help. Even when they aren't separated long distances, the body's blindsight is still useful as even when in a small area, the body can detect foes outside the head's sight or vice-versa. It's true: the Dullahan is an unusual and unique race, but it was because I wanted to explore its head/body mechanic that I created the page, and is the main reason why I feel this page should be a FA. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
::All fair points. I think one other would be a DM would have to figure out what even happens if the two can separate that far because as one example is, the head could be stolen! You've still got a few months though. Maybe there's a way to polish things up so that the traits mirror criteria for variant rules of featured articles. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
'''Support''' I'm not huge into 5e mechanics, so I won't pretend I am by giving a detailed rundown of what's good or bad about this race. It's imaginative, unconventional and well-written all around. Kinda tired of all the FAs being races lately, but at least this one is different, as CL pointed out.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
:OI! \o/ I pointed it out too! How ya gonna forget your pal BigShot?? grrrr >.< /jk <3 [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opposed''' I have looked over this and Varkarrus their previous comments. But I must disagree, a race is not where you break the mold as this is where you break the game easily, subclasses and classes can be very unique races quite simply cannot deviate too much from the norm before becomming overpowered but lets say why this is overpowered. Lets start from the top to bottom. Fey ancestory, sure thats fine and all but be carefull as this is the elf their thing. Now to their second ability, Call steed. First this cantrip is basically useless. The requirements are too much for any usefull use and the mount having to actually travel makes it not very game changing as there are two situations. Either the user is already on the mount, or so far away that this cantrip is not usefull. Outcast however, eh I guess, nothing unique and nothing bad. Now time for the reason why this is op as hell. Blindsight, this wording is just bad, if you dont want it to be actual blindsight just word it that the body can only see 10 feet around it. as the only thing blindsight is is being conciously aware what is around them. Being able to cast spells from both your head and body is just kinda op. I dont how to word this all in such a small text but it just very broken. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 07:27, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I feel like I should mention that the Dullahan race is being tested for balance atm in Cotsu's homebrew testing campaign. I will neither accept nor refute your comments on balance, just wait a bit for the campaign to give feedback on balance. Though, I am fine with rewording the blindsight feature. That said, I should correct your misconception: [[Call Steed (5e Spell)]] isn't "basically useless", it's the ability [[5e SRD:Find Steed]] reworked into a cantrip. It does provide benefits beyond just messaging a bonded steed! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:53, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:: I have checked the wording of the spell, it needs to have been bonded already, if the mount dies it cannot be resummoned and if it is somewhere else it has to physically move troughout the plane instead of being summoned. So yes how it is worded right now, it is borderline unusable. and if it is the find steed worked into the find steed then that is broken and steals the paladin specific spell for anyone to take which is just not fun. Blindsight gives you immunity to all visual illusions and no sneaking up behind them. Racial balance really does not need any playtesting before you can judge the balance of it, if you do need that it shows inexperience (Which is not bad, we all start at some point) some features are very much overpowered to the point it outshines most other races. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 10:50, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::Call Steed and Find Steed both allow for mounted combat as a seamless unit, and allowing the user to target both themselves and their mount with a spell: this is a far more important component to the spell than having the mount arrive instantaneously. Depending on where you keep your mount, it may only be a few rounds away. If you aren't in combat, waiting for your mount to arrive before leaving isn't a big deal either. Also: the Musicus meter provides scoring for blindsight, and keep in mind that the Dullahan only has 10 feet of it, too! The Cursed Dullahan may have 30 ft of blindsight, but they literally cannot see out of that range: a pretty fair trade if you ask me. I don't appreciate the "inexperience" remark, I've been at this for a year now. And, when you make a mold-breaking race like the Dullahan, YES it's going to need playtesting for balance. I also want to point out that WotC have released several mold-breaking races. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::: A year is an extremely short time, I call myself inexperienced still and have played and dmed for almost 7 years. Find steed is a paladin only spell for a reason and should stay this way as it is as icon to the paladin as find familiar to the wizard (and warlock) Call Steed is a worse version, an unneeded one at that. As like said before, either your mount is right below you or too far away to call. A Cantrip that should not exist. I do not care for the musicus meter, blindsight gives immunity to these things, despite only having 10. Based on the mystic, Tremorsense is a first level spell (something weaker then blind or true sight) and true sight a third level spell, making blind sight a second level spell. (Based on its power compared to these other two) and that is for 1 minute. having this permanent is incredibly op, no matter how small Not seeing out that range really does not matter, as either a character plays around that or they dont play this race. And sure, give me one example that actually worked without having the dm have to house rule things --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::I'd just like to reinforce that you should not call other users inexperienced unless they themselves have identified as inexperienced. Doing so can come off as belittling. As for your comment that racial balance does not require playtesting, I think that the developers of D&D 5e themselves would disagree, considering that the game was in development for years. You also say that blind sight is (or should be) a 2nd level spell. So is darkvision, which races have for free. Yes, darkvision lasts much longer, and 1:1 having blind sight as a race might be less "balanced" even at only 10 feet, but there is still some room for a race to have it. At the end of the day, homebrew is not for every table; even first-party content is not for every table, but homebrew has more freedom to try new things. If the DM doesn't want to plan around having a dullahan, he won't allow one in his game. I know we are to refrain from the "only a good DM" fallacy, but the truth is a DM should not allow all content &mdash; homebrew or from first-party supplements &mdash; without reviewing it first. This article has no IRR templates on it, so I don't see why its balance is being questioned solely in regards to its potential as a featured article.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::Just my thoughts. Call stead is a good spell as it prevents you from losing your stead because you had to leave it behind or because some random stole it, although someone could add that you know where the steed is when you cast the cantrip in case it can't get to you. Minor question, with call steed can you say anything else telepathically or only to come. As for blindsight; the fact it lets you ignore illusions and invisibility is a problem for the true dullahan, it is fine with the cursed dullahan because it is blind and possibly deaf (which should be specified) so you can have interesting shenanigans where it can see through the illusion but it does not know that the others are seeing an illusion. With the true dullahan the blindsight on the head is excessive and with the body maybe make it so it still has the blind condition or something? But otherwise I think the class is good, I am looking forward to using this race. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::: I feel it's, again, important to point out that the Blindsight on the True Dullahan extends to just 10 feet. By the time the Dullahan is within 10 feet of an illusion, its likely already too late. Still, I can add that it can't see through illusions; only invisibility and darkness, if you feel like that'd help? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: Even with 10 feet that can tell you if a person you are talking to and want to ambush/kidnap is really there or if they're an illusion, or if one section of a wall is actually not there and a group of minions are about to ambush you, on top it deals with invisibllity. If a DM didn't really use illusions, blindsight wouldn't be a big problem, but if they did it would make some fun things you can do with illusions pointless so saying or just suggesting that illusions affect blindsight would make it perfectly fine. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Musicus Rating==<br />
{{Musicus|6}}<br />
<br />
=== Base ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Fey Ancestry<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Cantrip<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Skill Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 2.5 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== True Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Darkvision<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1(?) || Flying Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Blindsight /10ft<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|str}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || No Food/Water/Air<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Limited Blindsight<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Portable Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== 3 Star Vote ==<br />
<br />
Since the voting is anonymous I'd personally like to provide transparency when I vote and I am guilty of not giving it 5 stars. I explained my thoughts above but if there are more questions why I voted this way, I don't mind sharing. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:16, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm curious as to why, given that the usual logic is "one star is awful, two is below average, three is average or acceptable, four is above average, five is exceptional." I suppose it depends on what your metric is, as well. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Reasons are above in the Featured Article Nomination discussion. I don't really argue with Redhawk's points either. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 21:09, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Having read the above, I certainly would. The fact that some other articles that are lower quality are featured, yet this one is not, baffles me to no end. I will, again, say that it really just depends on what your metric is. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying "this is a matter of preference, and yours clearly isn't the same as mine." --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Well maybe you can explain why this is better than I give credit or better than nameless featured articles. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 07:17, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Gladly. For starters, Call Steed isn't a useless cantrip. Before the update to this race today, it was the only way for the head to reliably find its body again - using the telepathic link with the mount and keeping the body mounted, taking advantage of a saddle, class, or feat that gives advantage to staying mounted. Having the head and body in separate places made for great RP moments when I've used this character in three different one-shots because she fit the setting. The head acting as a scout, or going WITH the scout, and the body relaying simple concepts via hand signs (advance, retreat, danger, be quiet, hold position) made for great tactics.<br />
:::::If an enemy has 15ft or more of movement, the blindsight does not save the body or head, because the enemy would still slip in and attack off-turn, therefore retaining surprise. Blindsight does not see through illusions, which are magical tricks to the brain; that's what TRUEsight is for. All the blindsight did for the character, in any occasion, was allow the body to fight while the head was elsewhere. The use of a glaive for reach allowed the character to fight to the limits of its vision, but move accurately thanks to the mount's vision. Cavalier Fighter, arguably the second-most optimized version of this race, still did not place her above other party members with vanilla races, nor did it make her feel like "the main character" of any one-shot.<br />
:::::The myriad of mechanics involved in this race, and playing it correctly, make it an absolute joy to play. My table has not only NOT found issue with it, even as a Cavalier, but pointed out that an Eldritch Knight that can cast spells and use a bonus action to melee attack would be even more powerful. In fact, one of my DMs even buffed her so she would be effective, saying that the mount should gain HP with her, and that the two could take hits for one another - effectively acting almost as a druid's Wild Shape temporary hit points. At the end of all calculation, this meant she had 244 HP (max CON and Tough at Lv20) + 183 for the horse (31+8x19) for 427HP. My Totem Barbarian has an effective HP of 325x2= 650HP (24CON, Tough, Totem damage resist plus a ring to resist psychic damage). Their damage per turn is about the same (four glaive swings or two maul swings with rage bonus), both can tank by imposing disadvantage or granting enemies advantage to goad hits.<br />
:::::I've played the race several times, run the math several times, and both in theory and practice, everything has meshed together exactly as it seems it was intended. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I did read all this and go over my original thoughts awhile ago. I changed my vote to a four. There's aspects I am still not sold on but I can concede it is better than a 3. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 06:59, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletion ==<br />
'''Support''' There is no reason this page cannot be deleted as per the previous requested based on wiki policy. There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request. The request template was also removed prior to the 14 days listed for discussion to occur. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1049612&oldid=1049590 diff] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1068474&oldid=1054068 diff]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::First, your citations only point to grammatical help, which hardly constitutes as someone (in this case an admin) becoming a "primary contributor" unless you ''really'' reach on your definition. No extra substance was added to the idea in question, no history, no culture, no new features, etc.<br />
::Second, because administration failed to honor a valid request for deletion and removed the deletion template prematurely, there's now another user who is beginning to edit the page. As of right now, the only thing they've managed to do is reword one of the main features of the race which, I would argue, was both unnecessary and removes one of the author intended uses of the race: a search for their stolen head. As a matter of fact, if I am pressed, I can easily sight the author's own words on the matter to prove such was the intention, which therefore makes that a violation of editing policy as written. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:07, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I'm sorry, ''what'' was a violation of editing policy? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:56, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::: I think what Max is trying to say is that he feels authorial intent is being disregarded, from my conversation with him on Discord and his comments above, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or coarse. I will agree with Geodude that I guess I should have chosen my words better, but he's also right about his interpretation of my statement. This is why I don't like the posh talk - makes it kinda tough to figure out what people're saying. As long as there's no swearing, I could probably just start typing more normally and be misunderstood less. Think I'm gonna do that. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Support''' I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contrubtions (with the intent of creating a new Dullahan page with new text and my rewritten traits). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removing the flying speed, and making the traits usable is wholly a significant contribution for this race. Not only that but numerous bits of advice on the talk page also shaped this race. However, let's let consensus sort this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Based on the talk surrounding the FA nomination above, and based on my own playtesting on three occasions, the race was perfectly usable in the state it was in. Everything worked as intended, and the table enjoyed the experience, even going as far as to request I play the character the third time. Were there any points on the talk page that ended up being implemented into the race? And, further, the topic of grammatical help or minor tweaks to numbers has been covered above as well. Was there another point to discuss to reach consensus? I had fallen under the impression that it had been established, aside from hearing ConcealedLight's opinion on the matter, or EpicBoss' opinion, as they were the other two who changed wording for clarity. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:A version of the article can return upon its deletion, for one thing. For another, the length of time an article has existed seems a tad irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted by request from the sole significant contributor. Even further, the author has offered to create a back-up .pdf version by request, so it's not as though the content will disappear for good - in this state or in one that follows the conventions and guidelines of this wiki. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I am, and always have been, opposed to this section of the deletion policy. a) if the article can be restored upon deletion, deletion is a waste of time; b) D&D Wiki would be all the lesser without this article, so its deletion is detrimental to the users and the health of the website; c) saving it as a .pdf (or on a user-page) does not allow users to find it on dynamic page lists, so users cannot find it, and point b is invoked.<br />
::I feel for Vark and I understand she is upset, but I will never personally support - whether GD allows it or not - the right of users to take away things that they willingly and knowingly gave to the community. Arbitrary deletion of valuable content defeats the purpose of preserving homebrew.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1181099Talk:Main Page2019-06-04T20:05:58Z<p>GamerAim: /* Page Appreciation */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Admin&diff=1181096User talk:Admin2019-06-04T20:00:54Z<p>GamerAim: /* Nepotism */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{helpportal}}<br />
{{Meta Pages Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:Admin User Talk]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 24)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 25 &ndash; 53)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 54 &ndash; 62)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 63 &ndash; 93)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Broken Redirects ==<br />
<br />
Is there a time to not delete [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects broken redirects]? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:57, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I believe those can be speedily deleted. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:58, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::[[Help:Deletion_Policy#Obsolete|Can confirm]]. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:10, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've taken care of those now. Sure was a lot easier back when we had a bot to do stuff like that for us. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks peeps ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:43, 25 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Naming a homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a class ( https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope,_Variant_(5e_Class) ), but thanks to an incomplete class by the same name I had to add variant to it's page name. Is there a way to change this completed class to have the non-variant page name or should I just move the page to "Lycanthropes" instead? Also first time submitting on here, how does one get a balance check for their class? Are the pages just reviewed over time or do we have to submit it somewhere? [[User:Foxfire94|''Foxfire94'']] 20:15, 21 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I moved the page. You can ask [[Help:Helpers Page|helpers]] on their user talk pages to review your work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you very much! I'll give that a go too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 11:27, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Semi-Protection for a page ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to get semi-protection on this page: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lycanthrope_(5e_Class) ? <br />
<br />
There was a slew of recent edits by an anonymous user that jumbled up several class features, left comments in the class and added unnecessary elements too. --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:55, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thank you! --[[User:Foxfire94|Foxfire94]] ([[User talk:Foxfire94|talk]]) 12:35, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Going to join this conversation because a recent edit to the [[Latis (5e)]] page made me realize I need protection for those pages - both that and [[Latis (3e)|the third edition page]] as well. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Bleh, the links I didn't do right, but I can see you have done the 5e one already, Green Dragon. [[User:Latius|Latius]] ([[User talk:Latius|talk]]) 00:14, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Changing email ==<br />
<br />
A user asked me about changing their email account and said that attempting to change the email at the Preferences tab resulted in the section didn't load properly. When I attempted to change my own email (to verify if the problem would also occur when I tried it), I encountered the same problem. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copying Copyrighted Work ==<br />
<br />
on my talk page, [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan#Psion Edits]] someone isn't happy with my edits. I feel in their comment they admit to remarkable similarity to WotC UA Mystic material. I've seen websites slightly alter 1st party material in order to share it and claim they didn't copy the work but I find this a gray I don't want part in. Even in my own rule variant for Arcane Archer [[Arcane Archer Arcane Shot (5e Class Feature)]] I don't reveal what the feature does. If {{user|Green Dragon}} or the smarter and better part of the community thinks the user's Mystic Variant is okay, then anyone feel free to undo my edits. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:01, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I would guide the users to our copyright policy. ''"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.'' '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!"''' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Can't find my created homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
I created a homebrew class (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Reishi_(5e_Class) but it isn't appearing with the rest of the classes on the<br />
class page. Can anyone assist me with that? Also, what did I do wrong to avoid this in the future? Thanks, ([[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 9:30, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
:It shows up for me (you did forget the summary though). Have you tried to refresh [[5e Classes]] (refresh tab)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks a ton! That did the trick! [[User:Croimandias|Croimandias]] ([[User talk:Croimandias|talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (MDT) = Croimandias 15:23, 07 May 2019 (EST))<br />
<br />
== Policy Discussions ==<br />
<br />
For those interested or able to help, a query has been brought up here &rarr; [[Help talk:Policies#Tavern Chat]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:15, 10 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit with Form ==<br />
<br />
What is this new tab? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 06:38, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I assume because the rating system has been implemented to many related pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Alright. It seems to be gone at the moment. Thanks :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
So the other day, I noticed a few pages created like this one [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Property:4]]. It says it has value of 2 which is one of the options that pops when you try to "Edit with Form". You can see the user contributions they made more, to include the exact sequence of numbers on this page [[https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Diamonnd]]. I am not sure what they are for but I'd like to delete them lol :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:37, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I noticed them too and am not sure what the OP is up to. It might be worth asking what the intent is but ultimately those pages are going to be deleted. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for Deletion ==<br />
<br />
There's quite a few of pages I've marked and keeping in spirit of accountability, I am waiting for another admin to review/delete those. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:50, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Same here. Maybe we are all thinking the same thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've got your backs. ''boop'' {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 02:38, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::thank ya! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:01, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Article Spotlight ==<br />
<br />
{{user|Max7238}} mentioned on Discord something to give attention to articles. There was a concern for bias amongst active users so I got the idea to shine light on a random article. I used [[Special:RandomInCategory/5e]] and got [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Realm%27s_Sun_(5E_Spelljammer_Setting) Spelljammer Setting Page] which isn't an ideal article to review. I was hoping someone could help with a random page generator that includes race, class, subclass, feat, and spells (and any other categories I may not be thinking of). I think that pages with IRR templates are okay too. My goal is just to bring attention to users' creations, good or in need of tweaking. I can start with doing one a month, and if there would be more users interested, we could rotate the weeks. If there are 4 users participating, then we'd have a weekly article spotlight, absent of bias (assuming the user reviews the first page the receive from the generator). uhm...that's all! Thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:31, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:P.S. I could reclick till I got a page without the campaign setting category -_- ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:33, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S.S. could also be something to share on the Facebook page....maybe... ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 07:41, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the idea to have the spotlight article a "community project" to bring it to standards? Or is it to highlight pages that are good? Is there a crossover with the Quality Articles idea? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 09:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The idea is to put a light on an article. If it needs brought to community standards then so be it. If it is up to snuff, then a blurb about what is liked about it should suffice. I wouldn't associate any spotlight article with QA or FA; those have their own criteria and process. If a QA or FA came up, then that's coincidence and a write up for the page could be done just like any non-QA/FA page. This would simply be bringing articles to attention on the front page....which I don't think I included in the original message :/<br />
::Perhaps I give it go for an example and then community can decide if it looks like something beneficial to the site. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:57, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Here is an example, written quite briefly but I think gives the picture of my idea or intent. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/MyWondrousItem (5e Equipment)|Article Spotlight ''Carpet of Shadow'' (5e Spell)]]. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:12, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Just watching for now but just wanted to let you know that the spell is a bit too similar to the ''{{5e|Entangle}}'' spell for my liking. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::This is an interesting idea especially for social media. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nepotism ==<br />
<br />
I don’t feel like Admins should be involved with Sysops for articles by their family or significant others, or conflict resolution and discipline that involves their family and significant others whether said persons are victim or violator. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 22:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:How are any relationships to be defined? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure, but there is at least 1 admin that is involved with another user, as per their own admissions. I don't know if BSFM means to reference those users, but in cases of self-declaration at least the relationship is well-defined. Obviously, we cannot otherwise speculate on relationships between users.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vaguely recall [[User:GamerAim|an old admin]] bringing this up a long time ago, too.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dullahan,_Variant_(5e_Race)&diff=1181094Talk:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)2019-06-04T19:54:55Z<p>GamerAim: /* Deletion */ Oppose. (And also you guys put in a voting widget. Seriously???)</p>
<hr />
<div>==Quality Article Nomination==<br />
{{Quality Article Nominee|[[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
Okay, barring this being a featured article, it's ''at least'' worthy of being a quality article, assuming I put an image up, no?<br />
<br />
:I anticipated that QAs are pages ready to be dropped into any campaign. If there is a design disclaimer then it needs some examination to see if it suitable. If the detachable head is the thing that DMs need to be careful with, then ''that'' should be a Variant (uh oh, it going to be a variant of a variant) in the same way that the core rulebooks handle variants that use optional rules. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Good point there Mara. This should ideally be addressed before the nominations continue further. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I've had a stab at doing this, although I would also like to rework the actual mechanics of the Cursed variant too. I also moved the Outcast variant to variants, since it's a variant. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Your "stab" has damaged the race considerably. Without the blindsight, the body cannot fight without its head without suffering disadvantage to all attacks, no matter how close to the enemy it is. The race cannot lose its head because it can summon the head to the body, which negates the author-intended use of the head as a risk factor and possible plot point in a module, one-shot, or campaign. The only change you've made that isn't completely out of left field is removing the subrace classifications. The removal, however, doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the race, it's just changing terminology.<br />
::::No, actually, even worse, you've removed any reference to the ''Call Steed'' cantrip created specifically for this race to use, and therefore also removed the intended investment the character should have in a singular creature as their bonded-for-life-steed. You've also removed the ability for the head to rest on the shoulders of the body, which negates the race's ability to blend in with other mortals who might be unfamiliar with the race. One could argue ''that'' is a substantial addition, if they prefer to be recognized immediately, and therefore most likely have a tougher time in RP. Furthermore, I just realized you removed ''all'' mentions of blindsight, not just for the regular version with its head, making the variants completely useless in combat or even navigating their environment. The entire thing is completely chopped up and ruined in this state. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Hi<br />
:::::*I have tried to remove the implication that the body and head are two separate creatures, which is the Design Disclaimer issue that would prevent this from being a QA.<br />
:::::*I removed the blindsight because being able to bypass invisibility, illusions and hiding creatures (even at 10 feet) is very powerful at 1st level.<br />
:::::*"The body" (i.e., you) fights normally since you draw line of sight to your head. You would have disadvantage if you are trying to attack something that is not in the line of sight to your head, which is a fair tradeoff for the versatility of being able to put your head somewhere else.<br />
:::::*Call Steed. This spell is up for deletion, so I tried to find alternatives. Furthermore, I have problems with call steed's balance. A ''cantrip'' that increases a beast's Intelligence to 6 and establishes a telepathic link?<br />
:::::*You can deride the reformatting of the variants if you want but it's something that needed doing.<br />
:::::*I had considered the placing of the head on the shoulders, but I also was interested in what was possible if it wasn't allowed. The rationale of "blending in with other mortals" is a little moot considering the extraordinary appearance of many other player races. In any event this is trivial to add back in.<br />
:::::*I ''already stated'' that I need to look at the cursed variant's mechanics. Maybe it will have blindsight, maybe it won't, please hold off on your complaints until I've actually done this.<br />
:::::Finally, the mantra of wikis is "be bold"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold], since anything can be undone. Good-faith edits should not be shamed with comments like "damaging the race" and "chopped up and ruined". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:47, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Edit: I just read through the Cursed variant and there's nothing saying that you would be blind, so I don't understand the complaint that it doesn't have blindsight. I was careful to state that the variant's features replaced the decapitated trait, so the restriction of "only draw line of sight to your head" does not apply. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::Having playtested the race myself on more than once occasion... There was no implication that they were separate creatures, just a caveat that certain spells might not affect both unless they were both in range. Blindsight does not pass invisibility, illusions, or hiding creatures unless the creature ''with'' blindsight makes a check (actively attempts to do so), like any other creature would. Bypassing those things is what Truesight is for. One of the main points of the race was to be able to have your head be elsewhere while your body could still fight, which was meant to cover for a wide variety of situations - which it did, in playtest. Being able to instantly recall your head to your body completely negates the majority of the draw and risk of choosing to play the race, which was what made it fun to begin with. Call Steed IS up for deletion, you're right, so I can't argue with wanting to find alternatives; however, it was included to serve the part of the idea where a dullahan was expected (culturally) to bond with a single mount for life and be able to communicate with it much like a real life person can do with a trained animal, hence the increased INT. I can also understand changing the classification of subrace to variant. I find it hard to see the edits as good-faith when the page was requested for deletion, then the template was removed prematurely despite it qualifying for deletion based on policy, and now another user is suddenly interested and attempting to become a primary contributor to block the page's deletion. If you had, for example, created a new race page and used 2nd Variant, as I've seen done before, you could easily make all your desired changes and request that page be QA, and I bet you'd get it because yours would be closer in line to officially published content. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:00, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::*The invisibility condition says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. Blindsight is a special sense. Blindsight also says that you perceive your surroundings without relying on sight. Any obscurement that relies on sight is therefore overcome. <br />
::::::::*You can still play as not being able to summon your head, if you look at the text I added to the Cursed variant.<br />
::::::::*There was no deletion proposal message on the page when I made my edits, so I was unaware that there was a deletion proposal or the reasons for it. Your allegations against me are unfair and I'm sorely tempted to bring it up as a [[Help:Behavioral Policy|civility]] issue. <br />
::::::::*Having said that, I am completely open to starting a new page and putting my version there instead, if there is a concensus for it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::I must have been thinking of the below argument about illusions; you're right about the invisibility. Out of combat that might be an issue, but in terms of stopping a surprise attack from an invisible creature, the creature would still technically approach and attack off-turn, surprising you anyway. It would be impossible to become Cursed under your conditions, since you can summon your head, so it would be strange to be without it for ten days unless you were rendered unconscious for that long somehow. I had assumed you would have done your research, and part of that assumption was that you were aware of the huge issue now surrounding Varkarrus' desire to leave the wiki along with the pages they've created. My assumption, then, caused me to mischaracterize your edits as above. Not only would I support the creation of a new page to maintain the integrity of this one, but I would gladly help edit in any way necessary and playtest like I did with this one - without making any claim to the page, in the event you ever wanted it deleted. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::You can't summon your head if you choose the Cursed variant: that whole variant is now for if you want the style of play originally intented.<br />
::::::::::I will petition to Green Dragon that I create a new Dullahan page with all new text/traits and ask him to reconsider the deletion of this page. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Featured Article Nomination==<br />
{{Failed Featured Article Nominee|{{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)}}<br />
I believe this article is worthy of being a featured article. It's got it all: fleshed out and detailed lore, interesting new game mechanics, versatility, balance, fluff, and a nice piece of artwork to round it off. It's been a few weeks since the last major edit, and a full month since the initial concept, too. Maybe it could use a few touchups, and the nomination process really brings out the search for where those can go. Whaddya say, folks? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I have failed this nomination after two months of no discussion and no consensus formed. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' Seems pretty shit imo. I don't see how this is a race or a people, maybe a racial class or smth. Like, how they are linked to the Feywild? and how does this plays off or uses any of the actual Dullahan besides the headless horsemen gimmick? You should try giving your "races" more character before submitting for this featured thing or whatever and making such claims in your intro. <br />
:Everyone is entitled to their opinions but telling someone their idea is "pretty shit" & "they should try giving etc" is unacceptable. Please check out [[Help:Behavioral Policy]] or ask questions if this is a problem. I issued an <s>IP</s> block for this, account creation enabled if you wish to register and contribute politely and constructively. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' I've been meaning to give this nomination a review for some time now but its overall unconventionality makes it difficult to formulate the issues with this page and so I've been avoiding it. However, while there are a few more general issues here, I'm more concerned about the significant issue of splitting the PC into two entities and then applying a plethora of tedious rule specifications so that that entity can function. I think that if you have to change how the game functions at a basic level for the sake of one player's homebrew, then that homebrew doesn't eloquently work with the standards of the game. Furthermore, if that you need to read five separate rule specifications for each of your PC's races alone then it applies further workload for the DM and as far as fixing some of the issues with this race, I imagine this list of rule specification will only get bigger and more tiresome. As such, due to the tedious and centrally flawed nature of the race, I will be opposing this nomination until it can be reworked. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 07:59, 1 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
: Okay, I don't want to sound biased but I think your reasoning for opposing the FA nomination sets a worrying and dangerous precedent. Your reason for opposing this article as FA is the exact same reason why I nominated it in the first place. I very strongly feel that homebrew, whether in D&D, or other games, should break convention! Experimenting with game mechanics is fun and can lead to interesting results! So, sure, the Dullahan requires a few errata (and let's face it, there isn't many and they're easy to remember) to make the disembodied head work... but, if you were playing D&D as a Dullahan, with a competent GM who is easily able to keep track of said errata, wouldn't that be a fun experience with a lot of potential for the kinds of shenanigans that make D&D fun? That's for an experienced super-organized GM though, if the rules are too clunky for more mundane GMs (and I really don't think they are), the fact that the experience would be fun and interesting means that it'd be worth the effort to make it work vs abandoning it entirely. Either way, GMs are under no obligation to allow a homebrew concept even if it's a D&Dwiki featured article, and I feel there's going to need to be a community-wide discussion on how conventional a piece of D&D homebrew needs to be in order to be allowed as a featured article. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 07:45, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment''' Overall I think this is written well and has the right amount of information a feature article needs. It has things I really like too. Fey, it has flavor and isn't just throwing two creature types on there being all bland. Like, I want to support this article simply because it doesn't do what so many articles with two types did. Lifestyle choice is cool. Different, and interesting. But this kind of sums up my feels on most the traits. Just very unsure of them. Blindsight on the body, I think I get it? But if the body and head have a telepathic bond, I don't think you need Blindsight. Which, in regards to the head/body relationship, there's no limit to how far the head can go? Personally not a fan of this but I can see it being in the realm of "Rule of Cool". The head specifically with its temporary hit points and shared pool with the body is interesting. Again, traits that I'm just unsure of. Temp HP is my fav mechanic right now. I'm not sure how it feel about it here, combined with unconventional AC calculation which it too is another bundle of neat sprinkled with, hmmm different. I'd be more inclined to use normal AC calc for the head, force the player to protect thing as much as possible. Be afraid to not be one unit. With all that, I think its great something different has been presented. It follows right along with 5e philosophy and design to add something new to the game, not just rehash and reuse existing material. For me, it is just a little too different. I don't want to impede the articles success just because my hesitation though. Good luck with the nomination. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
:Can confirm. There's no limit on how far the head and body can be from each other. Right now, that even extends to other planes. If that's a bit excessive it could be tuned down, but the potential for a dullahan's head to be separated from their body by long distances has lots of potential for stories, and player schemes: sending a dullahan's head to fly down a tunnel to scout ahead without being seen / fly over obstacles that can't be walked over, to deliver messages. Or the dullahan's head could be captured by foes, and the body blindly writes down what the villain is saying... or the reverse; a villain unfamiliar with a dullahan's flying head chained their body but their head is escaping to find help. Even when they aren't separated long distances, the body's blindsight is still useful as even when in a small area, the body can detect foes outside the head's sight or vice-versa. It's true: the Dullahan is an unusual and unique race, but it was because I wanted to explore its head/body mechanic that I created the page, and is the main reason why I feel this page should be a FA. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (MDT)<br />
::All fair points. I think one other would be a DM would have to figure out what even happens if the two can separate that far because as one example is, the head could be stolen! You've still got a few months though. Maybe there's a way to polish things up so that the traits mirror criteria for variant rules of featured articles. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
'''Support''' I'm not huge into 5e mechanics, so I won't pretend I am by giving a detailed rundown of what's good or bad about this race. It's imaginative, unconventional and well-written all around. Kinda tired of all the FAs being races lately, but at least this one is different, as CL pointed out.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
:OI! \o/ I pointed it out too! How ya gonna forget your pal BigShot?? grrrr >.< /jk <3 [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opposed''' I have looked over this and Varkarrus their previous comments. But I must disagree, a race is not where you break the mold as this is where you break the game easily, subclasses and classes can be very unique races quite simply cannot deviate too much from the norm before becomming overpowered but lets say why this is overpowered. Lets start from the top to bottom. Fey ancestory, sure thats fine and all but be carefull as this is the elf their thing. Now to their second ability, Call steed. First this cantrip is basically useless. The requirements are too much for any usefull use and the mount having to actually travel makes it not very game changing as there are two situations. Either the user is already on the mount, or so far away that this cantrip is not usefull. Outcast however, eh I guess, nothing unique and nothing bad. Now time for the reason why this is op as hell. Blindsight, this wording is just bad, if you dont want it to be actual blindsight just word it that the body can only see 10 feet around it. as the only thing blindsight is is being conciously aware what is around them. Being able to cast spells from both your head and body is just kinda op. I dont how to word this all in such a small text but it just very broken. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 07:27, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:I feel like I should mention that the Dullahan race is being tested for balance atm in Cotsu's homebrew testing campaign. I will neither accept nor refute your comments on balance, just wait a bit for the campaign to give feedback on balance. Though, I am fine with rewording the blindsight feature. That said, I should correct your misconception: [[Call Steed (5e Spell)]] isn't "basically useless", it's the ability [[5e SRD:Find Steed]] reworked into a cantrip. It does provide benefits beyond just messaging a bonded steed! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:53, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:: I have checked the wording of the spell, it needs to have been bonded already, if the mount dies it cannot be resummoned and if it is somewhere else it has to physically move troughout the plane instead of being summoned. So yes how it is worded right now, it is borderline unusable. and if it is the find steed worked into the find steed then that is broken and steals the paladin specific spell for anyone to take which is just not fun. Blindsight gives you immunity to all visual illusions and no sneaking up behind them. Racial balance really does not need any playtesting before you can judge the balance of it, if you do need that it shows inexperience (Which is not bad, we all start at some point) some features are very much overpowered to the point it outshines most other races. --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 10:50, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::Call Steed and Find Steed both allow for mounted combat as a seamless unit, and allowing the user to target both themselves and their mount with a spell: this is a far more important component to the spell than having the mount arrive instantaneously. Depending on where you keep your mount, it may only be a few rounds away. If you aren't in combat, waiting for your mount to arrive before leaving isn't a big deal either. Also: the Musicus meter provides scoring for blindsight, and keep in mind that the Dullahan only has 10 feet of it, too! The Cursed Dullahan may have 30 ft of blindsight, but they literally cannot see out of that range: a pretty fair trade if you ask me. I don't appreciate the "inexperience" remark, I've been at this for a year now. And, when you make a mold-breaking race like the Dullahan, YES it's going to need playtesting for balance. I also want to point out that WotC have released several mold-breaking races. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::: A year is an extremely short time, I call myself inexperienced still and have played and dmed for almost 7 years. Find steed is a paladin only spell for a reason and should stay this way as it is as icon to the paladin as find familiar to the wizard (and warlock) Call Steed is a worse version, an unneeded one at that. As like said before, either your mount is right below you or too far away to call. A Cantrip that should not exist. I do not care for the musicus meter, blindsight gives immunity to these things, despite only having 10. Based on the mystic, Tremorsense is a first level spell (something weaker then blind or true sight) and true sight a third level spell, making blind sight a second level spell. (Based on its power compared to these other two) and that is for 1 minute. having this permanent is incredibly op, no matter how small Not seeing out that range really does not matter, as either a character plays around that or they dont play this race. And sure, give me one example that actually worked without having the dm have to house rule things --[[User:RedHawk007|RedHawk007]] ([[User talk:RedHawk007|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::I'd just like to reinforce that you should not call other users inexperienced unless they themselves have identified as inexperienced. Doing so can come off as belittling. As for your comment that racial balance does not require playtesting, I think that the developers of D&D 5e themselves would disagree, considering that the game was in development for years. You also say that blind sight is (or should be) a 2nd level spell. So is darkvision, which races have for free. Yes, darkvision lasts much longer, and 1:1 having blind sight as a race might be less "balanced" even at only 10 feet, but there is still some room for a race to have it. At the end of the day, homebrew is not for every table; even first-party content is not for every table, but homebrew has more freedom to try new things. If the DM doesn't want to plan around having a dullahan, he won't allow one in his game. I know we are to refrain from the "only a good DM" fallacy, but the truth is a DM should not allow all content &mdash; homebrew or from first-party supplements &mdash; without reviewing it first. This article has no IRR templates on it, so I don't see why its balance is being questioned solely in regards to its potential as a featured article.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::Just my thoughts. Call stead is a good spell as it prevents you from losing your stead because you had to leave it behind or because some random stole it, although someone could add that you know where the steed is when you cast the cantrip in case it can't get to you. Minor question, with call steed can you say anything else telepathically or only to come. As for blindsight; the fact it lets you ignore illusions and invisibility is a problem for the true dullahan, it is fine with the cursed dullahan because it is blind and possibly deaf (which should be specified) so you can have interesting shenanigans where it can see through the illusion but it does not know that the others are seeing an illusion. With the true dullahan the blindsight on the head is excessive and with the body maybe make it so it still has the blind condition or something? But otherwise I think the class is good, I am looking forward to using this race. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
::::::: I feel it's, again, important to point out that the Blindsight on the True Dullahan extends to just 10 feet. By the time the Dullahan is within 10 feet of an illusion, its likely already too late. Still, I can add that it can't see through illusions; only invisibility and darkness, if you feel like that'd help? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: Even with 10 feet that can tell you if a person you are talking to and want to ambush/kidnap is really there or if they're an illusion, or if one section of a wall is actually not there and a group of minions are about to ambush you, on top it deals with invisibllity. If a DM didn't really use illusions, blindsight wouldn't be a big problem, but if they did it would make some fun things you can do with illusions pointless so saying or just suggesting that illusions affect blindsight would make it perfectly fine. [[User:Babosa|Babosa]] ([[User talk:Babosa|talk]]) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Musicus Rating==<br />
{{Musicus|6}}<br />
<br />
=== Base ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Fey Ancestry<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Cantrip<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Skill Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 2.5 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== True Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|con}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Darkvision<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1(?) || Flying Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Blindsight /10ft<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Dullahan ===<br />
{| class="5e" style="text-align: left;"<br />
! Cost || Racial Trait<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2.5 || Base<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || {{5a|str}} score increases by 1.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || No Food/Water/Air<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1 || Limited Blindsight<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Portable Head<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 0.5 || Proficiency<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
! 6 || Total.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== 3 Star Vote ==<br />
<br />
Since the voting is anonymous I'd personally like to provide transparency when I vote and I am guilty of not giving it 5 stars. I explained my thoughts above but if there are more questions why I voted this way, I don't mind sharing. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:16, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I'm curious as to why, given that the usual logic is "one star is awful, two is below average, three is average or acceptable, four is above average, five is exceptional." I suppose it depends on what your metric is, as well. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Reasons are above in the Featured Article Nomination discussion. I don't really argue with Redhawk's points either. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 21:09, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Having read the above, I certainly would. The fact that some other articles that are lower quality are featured, yet this one is not, baffles me to no end. I will, again, say that it really just depends on what your metric is. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying "this is a matter of preference, and yours clearly isn't the same as mine." --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Well maybe you can explain why this is better than I give credit or better than nameless featured articles. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 07:17, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::Gladly. For starters, Call Steed isn't a useless cantrip. Before the update to this race today, it was the only way for the head to reliably find its body again - using the telepathic link with the mount and keeping the body mounted, taking advantage of a saddle, class, or feat that gives advantage to staying mounted. Having the head and body in separate places made for great RP moments when I've used this character in three different one-shots because she fit the setting. The head acting as a scout, or going WITH the scout, and the body relaying simple concepts via hand signs (advance, retreat, danger, be quiet, hold position) made for great tactics.<br />
:::::If an enemy has 15ft or more of movement, the blindsight does not save the body or head, because the enemy would still slip in and attack off-turn, therefore retaining surprise. Blindsight does not see through illusions, which are magical tricks to the brain; that's what TRUEsight is for. All the blindsight did for the character, in any occasion, was allow the body to fight while the head was elsewhere. The use of a glaive for reach allowed the character to fight to the limits of its vision, but move accurately thanks to the mount's vision. Cavalier Fighter, arguably the second-most optimized version of this race, still did not place her above other party members with vanilla races, nor did it make her feel like "the main character" of any one-shot.<br />
:::::The myriad of mechanics involved in this race, and playing it correctly, make it an absolute joy to play. My table has not only NOT found issue with it, even as a Cavalier, but pointed out that an Eldritch Knight that can cast spells and use a bonus action to melee attack would be even more powerful. In fact, one of my DMs even buffed her so she would be effective, saying that the mount should gain HP with her, and that the two could take hits for one another - effectively acting almost as a druid's Wild Shape temporary hit points. At the end of all calculation, this meant she had 244 HP (max CON and Tough at Lv20) + 183 for the horse (31+8x19) for 427HP. My Totem Barbarian has an effective HP of 325x2= 650HP (24CON, Tough, Totem damage resist plus a ring to resist psychic damage). Their damage per turn is about the same (four glaive swings or two maul swings with rage bonus), both can tank by imposing disadvantage or granting enemies advantage to goad hits.<br />
:::::I've played the race several times, run the math several times, and both in theory and practice, everything has meshed together exactly as it seems it was intended. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I did read all this and go over my original thoughts awhile ago. I changed my vote to a four. There's aspects I am still not sold on but I can concede it is better than a 3. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 06:59, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletion ==<br />
'''Support''' There is no reason this page cannot be deleted as per the previous requested based on wiki policy. There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request. The request template was also removed prior to the 14 days listed for discussion to occur. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1049612&oldid=1049590 diff] and [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Dullahan%2C_Variant_%285e_Race%29&type=revision&diff=1068474&oldid=1054068 diff]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::First, your citations only point to grammatical help, which hardly constitutes as someone (in this case an admin) becoming a "primary contributor" unless you ''really'' reach on your definition. No extra substance was added to the idea in question, no history, no culture, no new features, etc.<br />
::Second, because administration failed to honor a valid request for deletion and removed the deletion template prematurely, there's now another user who is beginning to edit the page. As of right now, the only thing they've managed to do is reword one of the main features of the race which, I would argue, was both unnecessary and removes one of the author intended uses of the race: a search for their stolen head. As a matter of fact, if I am pressed, I can easily sight the author's own words on the matter to prove such was the intention, which therefore makes that a violation of editing policy as written. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:07, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::I'm sorry, ''what'' was a violation of editing policy? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:56, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::: I think what Max is trying to say is that he feels authorial intent is being disregarded, from my conversation with him on Discord and his comments above, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or coarse. I will agree with Geodude that I guess I should have chosen my words better, but he's also right about his interpretation of my statement. This is why I don't like the posh talk - makes it kinda tough to figure out what people're saying. As long as there's no swearing, I could probably just start typing more normally and be misunderstood less. Think I'm gonna do that. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Support''' I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contrubtions (with the intent of creating a new Dullahan page with new text and my rewritten traits). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removing the flying speed, and making the traits usable is wholly a significant contribution for this race. Not only that but numerous bits of advice on the talk page also shaped this race. However, let's let consensus sort this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::Based on the talk surrounding the FA nomination above, and based on my own playtesting on three occasions, the race was perfectly usable in the state it was in. Everything worked as intended, and the table enjoyed the experience, even going as far as to request I play the character the third time. Were there any points on the talk page that ended up being implemented into the race? And, further, the topic of grammatical help or minor tweaks to numbers has been covered above as well. Was there another point to discuss to reach consensus? I had fallen under the impression that it had been established, aside from hearing ConcealedLight's opinion on the matter, or EpicBoss' opinion, as they were the other two who changed wording for clarity. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1179535Talk:Main Page2019-05-31T16:59:14Z<p>GamerAim: /* New Skin */ Added a reply. I'm glad we're all getting along again!</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varkarrus&diff=1179275User talk:Varkarrus2019-05-30T23:23:48Z<p>GamerAim: /* FWIW */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Welcome to D&D Wiki! == <br />
<br />
;Welcome!<br />
Hello Varkarrus, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your [[Special:Preferences|user preferences]] match your preferences.<br />
;Questions:<br />
If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's [[Help:Talk Pages|talk page]]. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on [[DnD Discussion]]s. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked [[User talk:Admin|here]]. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.<br />
;Formatting<br />
Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Help:Editing] on Wikipedia (or even their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Introduction] page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. [[Help:Portal]] also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.<br />
;Community<br />
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of [[Help:Behavioral Policy|policies]] are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette] when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|removal process]]. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --[[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 13:36, 10 October 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== D&D Wiki plays...Diplomacy? ==<br />
<br />
[[Discussion:D&D Wiki plays...Diplomacy?|You're invited!]] — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 18:47, 19 October 2017 (MDT)<br />
Not really my thing, sorry. Thanks for thinking about me, though!<br />
<br />
== Dominion Overlord talk page comments ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to point out that I don't think your comments were constructive or helpful on [[Dominion Overlord (5e Class)|this page]]. If you look at the creators contributions, overpoweredness is a theme and so is incomplete work. That said, criticizing that his work is very poorly written and formatted without ways to improve it doesn't help (others do this on other pages too). Then to follow up with "fix it or host elsewhere" is to make matters worse. The kid (HS or college he's admitted so I use kid) doesn't know what to fix! A lot of contributors do this (stub without explaining) and it isn't helping the site. We all need to take time and put in effort to help others. I do not mean to target you, I was asked to review the page because I've helped with his other work. I saw these comments and just tired of this "practice" currently throughout the 5e wiki. Others will see this and I hope we all work together, positively, to help everyone. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 13:03, 25 January 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Would you like to do some collaborative worldbuilding? ==<br />
<br />
Please leave me a a message [[Discussion:Who's up for some fun worldbuilding?|here]] if you're interested! [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 18:07, 9 February 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
.....you wanted a race deleted for a multitude of reasons but one reason was the men would dress or appear feminine; then you create a subrace that does just that. Or you were upset that the men would live with multiple women, but here women keep men as slaves “and they need to know their place”. The hypocrisy is glaring. I’ve no concern with the Grogolthan as race for the record. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 05:54, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:Do not comment on my user talk page anymore. I'd prefer it if I don't have to interact with you at all. There's no tactful way to put this but I do not trust you or feel comfortable around you. ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 10:15, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:Please don't leave messages on User talk pages for - what appears to me to be - the sole purpose of confrontation and conflict. If you have an issue with a user's position on, or the content of, an article, please address it on the given article's talk page in a constructive and polite manner. If you have an issue with Dandwiki policy, please address it on the relevant pages. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 08:47, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== I feel kind of uncomfortable saying this, but... ==<br />
<br />
We ''really'' shouldn't say things like, "I do not like BSFM" about other users. It could be construed as a personal attack or an attempt to defame another user :( The other things, like distrusting him and thinking he's too emotionally immature for adminship, were valid complaints to make on that page (even if I disagree with them)!--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:52, 11 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
: Aight. Change made. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lichdom is the best kind of Dom ==<br />
<br />
Hey!! I've been having an absolute BLAST playing this Lich class, thans for your work in creating it and honing it. Im super happy to contribute to honing it down. Its actually my first time playing 5e (I'm a hard core 3.5 player), so I've been getting used to the adjustments in the overall mechanics as well as how this class balances with the rest of the standard ones. From what I've learned so far it I modeled this character (Arthas) off of a Lich homebrew that I made in 3.5 with a death domain cleric. Only thing is that you couldn't do the Lich ritual until 11th level, so you spend half the game not basking in undead glory.<br />
<br />
I really like the progression of this class and its been scaling up really well. We started at level 3 and I never felt toothless at any time, but at the same time it wasn't so OP that I could run through and do stuff without consequence. It balances well with our fighter on the in the group, but the d8 hit die make the Lich more of a glass cannon. Ive sunk alot of enchantments and other stuff into boosting AC so its harder to have half your health smacked away in one strike. There aren't alot of casters in our party, so the death knight brings JUST enough arcana to keep things interesting and solve some of our problems with magic. The Prestidigitation addition has been a nerull-send for so many scenarios. I could delve into some the RPing and my characters enchantment skill, but thats more for flavor and rounding out the campaign in our party.<br />
<br />
Balancing the mechanics has been the real challenge and my DM has been making me pay dearly for being an undead that walks around with mortals, especially ones that have been harassed by constant necromancers. The DC for "remarkably well preserved" is quite easy to beat so it hasn't served me very well, unless I'm in full armor with a helm, in which case the DC automatically becomes 20 (home brewed rule from DM).<br />
<br />
On the battlefield, I can keep pace in combat with the fighter but get hit way harder. I'm essentially a glass cannon, but I play it like I can run into any scenario because death is of no consequence to me. I took the double weapon fighting style, and my DM allowed me to port a bastard sword over from 3.5e since I had a wicked back story for it (thanks Frostmourne), so I have one hand that does 1d10 damage and a war hammer that does 1d8. With the enchantments on both and my massive strength, I'm doing average of 33 melee damage with a full attack action at level 5. We just advanced to level 6 last session and my DM had my phylactery break apart when we jumped planes. I had to spend a some time during our rest making the bastard sword into a new phylactery, but now Frostmourne is even more important to my character. As for the casting balance, I added in some more necromancy spells to the Death Knight spell list because having undead minions is a staple for any powerful undead Lich. The reduction in spell slots is what really saves to balance this sub class, because I have to choose what spells I use very carefully. Will I save slots for sheild or raise a few undead skeletons to take the attack focus off my parties back?<br />
<br />
Im REALLY excited to get to level 7 and play test the greater phylactery, I'm going to go with blood but I had an idea of adding a 4th frost phylactery as well, but I'm going to play whats here first and see how it balances. I'll post more updates as we go. Will have updates for you as soon as I see how that works.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Dark Mage sub class definitely needs some work and I'm going to flush it out a bit more once I hammer down some of the Death Knight details. Im going to pull quite a bit from the wizard's necromancer subclass as well as some of the home brew necromancer abilities on the DnD Wiki. I think it would make more sense for the Dark Mage to become a full blown spell caster at that point instead of 3/4ths, as I imagine the Dark Mage sub class to be more akin to the Lich monster itself. I haven't bounced those ideas off my DM and he has been instrumental in helping to balance what flies and what doesn't in 5e, so Ill chat some more about it with him so we can round it out and aim for a featured article!<br />
<br />
Cheers mate! Thanks for all your ground work and rest well knowing that someone is having a great time rocking out one of your classes.<br />
*[[User:ArthasTheLich|ArthasTheLich]] ([[User talk:ArthasTheLich|talk]]) 13:41, 23 October 2018 (MDT)<br />
** Yo thanks for all these kind words! It was really good reading all this, and its super cool seeing how its playing out, as well as seeing what you do with the Dark Mage! I remember back when I made that subclass, I made it a 3/4s spellcaster because I felt the Lich had a lot of very powerful class traits, and it seemed to me that spellcasters aren't supposed to get powerful class traits as they all get access to spells. I think I may have been mistaken at the time, and a full-caster Death Mage would probably work fine. As an aside, I made a minor elaboration on the "Remarkably Well Preserverd" option, since I get the feeling your GM is making every single NPC roll to see if your character is a lich, which wasn't actually the intention behind it!<br />
<br />
== Psychopath Class Fixes ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Glass here. I know you talked a while back on how some of the class stuff can be fixed. And I was wondering if you knew who owned said class. Because if nobody else is taking it, I can fix it up and make it into a proper class. Talk to me on my page, and we can get started.<br />
: I'm not personally interested in putting the effort to fix the whole class, but if you want to go through with it, go ahead. The class isn't owned by anyone, a look at its history seems like most of its edits were made by anonymous users. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 22:14, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the heads up. Though, if you've got the time, I'd like for you to read through some of the changes when I'm finished. Just to see what you think. It's one thing to fix a few minor details, another to essentially start from scratch, and I'd like to know your thoughts on it as I go along. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 19:36, 14 January 2019 (MST)<br />
: Sure! That's fair enough, shoot me a message when you do [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
Alright, I've patched up some of the wording on some of the features, reworked some of the other abilities and gotten rid of the Extra Feats (seriously, just seeing that is disgusting). Gonna give it a quick polish, then work through the subclasses. Let me know what you think. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 08:27, 30 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
Alright, I've officially finished with the class, just wondered if you could look it over and see what you think of it. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 08:21, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
I do appreciate the feedback, and I've playtested the current class as is and I'm seeing some problems. Not a whole lot, thankfully, but some adjustments will have to be made to the class before we make it official. I don't think it's necessary to scrap about 90% of it like you suggested. I've posted my thoughts and findings on the talk page of the class. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 21:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== [[Talk:Oath of Silence (5e Subclass)]] ==<br />
<br />
Hey Vark, you seem to like interesting takes of design; can you take a look at this page? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:56, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Talk:Fenrirborn (5e Race)]]==<br />
<br />
Hey Vark, thx for moving the "fenribprn" race i did bfor,i made a typo and i didnt know how to edit the name, so i just gave up on it and made a new one, thx again for helping. :3<br />
[[User:Welp28|Welp28]] ([[User talk:Welp28|talk]]) 23.23, 27 March 2019 (GMT+8)<br />
* No prblomem ;) [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:45, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== FA/QA Help ==<br />
<br />
Hey Vark, as a listed helper for these, can you check out [[Talk:Bag of Wizards (5e Equipment)]] when/if you have time. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:30, 20 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
* sure thing! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 08:48, 20 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warning ==<br />
<br />
I am sorry, Varkarrus, but I am issuing you a [[Help:Warning Policy|warning]] for the off-topic comments made in [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1155771&oldid=1155763 this edit], more specifically the comments I removed [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Discord_Policy&diff=1155838&oldid=1155824 here]. ConcealedWife is correct that restating the previous discussion of the {{5h|Race|Marilith}}'s alignment doesn't really have much to do with the discussion on whether users can be trusted to remain civil, if anything. I don't like doing this, and I hope you realize I don't mean this as a slight against you personally, but I did say that further off-topic comments would be removed and that warning would be considered. I hope that you can learn from this going forward. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 12:24, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
: The stuff that was removed actually Was relevant to the discussion. I restated the arguments I gave so that people would have context to what I was saying. I may have gotten a bit long-winded but I did feel it was important and relevant to the topic at hand. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:37, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I understand that the comments helped tie your point together in case others who don’t frequent the Discord wouldn’t know the context but Geodude has to draw a line and they did say anymore conversation than actions would be taken. I originally opened the discussion but closed because I didn’t think I’d communicate the appropriate amount of remorse as Geodude has done. There’s a little bit disregard between The Wiki and Discord and admins gotta have a backbone. If you think things are unjust or bias between users, please share it. But I hope that my post helps both sides of this. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 16:01, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Message ==<br />
I WAS going to ask why all the sudden deletions, but I couldn't reach you on Discord. And then I came here. I'll just leave behind that I really enjoy your content, and I'd be nothing short of furious to see you go... --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 09:16, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I know you do, and I'm thankful for that. Unfortunately, the number of people in this community I dislike greatly outweighs the number of people I like at this point, and I no longer feel comfortable being part of this community. Feel free to make copies of any page that you'd like for your own use. I'm going to take as much of my stuff that I'm attached to as possible, save them, make backups, and host them on better, more open homebrew communities. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 09:22, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am sorry if my actions caused this {{user|Varkarrus}}. I acted in what I thought was the best interest of the chat. I'll work with you as best as I can with your contributions, and that your leave isn't permanent. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 10:26, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It's permanent. I'm going to find a better community. I'm following in the footsteps of another user who left for similar reasons, and another user is leaving after me. Green Dragon's deletion of my pro-LGBT message in the discord was the final straw. It has cemented my opinion that while certain individual users may be nice people, the community as a whole is far too tolerant of toxic right wing beliefs for a community that claims to be apolitical. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 10:56, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::There is one thing in particular that really gets my goat about this. When you put a bunch of left wing types and right wing types together in a community, its the left wing types who tend to leave the community first, as they do not feel safe sharing a community with the right wing types, which gives an advantage to them. I was hoping, by sticking around, I could fight this advantage, and "outlast" the right-wingers. But no, I've hit my limit for tolerance. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:00, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would love to comment, in a genuine sincere manner, but I don't think anything would change. I wish you the best, and feel free to DM, email, or however if you ever would like me to look over something. I doubt you will :p but still, I want it known the door is open. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:18, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I actually was referring to your comments about hate against America (and fallen war heroes), since that has nothing to do with homebrew tabletop conversions (and nothing about left or right ring politics, more historical meanings and/or current terrorists who cannot work with a system). However, you didn't ask but just acted so your actions are yours to own. I have nothing against LGBT people, and a simple comment supporting them would get my support too.<br />
:::::And I never deleted any message on Discord.<br />
:::::I will stress that all the contributions you have submitted to D&D Wiki, deleted or not, are licensed under the GNU FDL and you are required to continue licensing them under this license. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::We do have the good-faith deletion criteria of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7 G7] but I'm afraid in many cases it's not applicable (for example, I myself had made edits to [[:Rift Glaive (5e Equipment)]]) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:30, 28 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'll put some time aside to review you mass deletion requests but at the moment most of them seem invalid as per the deletion policy. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:00, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Please be sure to take into account all of it, including the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion G7] if you guys actually do use Wikipedia's guidelines. Honestly, there's no reason to hold works hostage beyond pettiness if Vark really is the ''primary'' contributor. If everyone else is balance tweaks, grammar stuff, and didn't actually add to the IDEA, I find it really hard to say they are ''primary'' contributors. I wonder if a good metric would be number of bytes added by each person, used to determine an acceptable percentage that just... Isn't publicized except to mods and admin or whatever. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 21:46, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We intend to delete all pages that qualify for G7 deletion. There’s no concrete metric to determine who is/are the “primary contributor(s);” admins are expected to use their own judgment, and if other users disagree with the decision to delete or not, discussion should be had. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 22:22, 29 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I can appreciate that, but given the recent circumstances, I think it would be a good idea to start defining the term. As it stands, it can be used almost as a cop-out or logical fallacy in argument that cannot be disputed because it's definition cannot be located or agreed upon. If a single user has both created the page, contributed more than, for example, 50% of its data, and any other edits were changing numbers for balance or fixing some of the writing to be more WotC-esque, I would say that single user could clearly be defined as the primary contributor. What I would say, however, only has as much worth as you put into it, because, as is the glaring issue for the moment, the term is yet undefined in an official capacity. --[[User:Max7238|Max7238]] ([[User talk:Max7238|talk]]) 14:30, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Warning: Incivility ==<br />
<br />
You are being issued a warning for the edit made [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Hate_Bolt_(5e_Equipment)&diff=next&oldid=1178103 here]. Politically charged talk of killing real people has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons nor anything to do with the page. Please avoid making such edits or comments in the future. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:09, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Reverting Edits ==<br />
<br />
Do not revert my edits without discussion. This is your only warning before you will be blocked. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 15:25, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== FWIW ==<br />
<br />
FWIW, I haven't done more than a cursory glance at the "drama," but from my PoV I think you were in the right. You know what I think of you, so I won't repeat it here, but in spite of that I have always trusted that almost any problem you brought up without provocation was from a place of sound, compassionate reasoning. Even when we disagreed on a course of action, I believed that your heart was in something of a good place. That probably doesn't mean much coming from me, I'm sure, and I doubt you'll ever read this. But it deserved to be said, regardless.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1179274Talk:Main Page2019-05-30T23:23:11Z<p>GamerAim: /* New Skin */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1179272Talk:Main Page2019-05-30T23:14:55Z<p>GamerAim: /* New Skin */ Added a reply. Please don't take it personally, CL. What I said was critique, nothing more. I'm sincere when I say to ignore me if these critiques are considered acceptable design trends. I haven't seen them, but I could be wrong.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAimhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerAim&diff=1179270User talk:GamerAim2019-05-30T22:59:05Z<p>GamerAim: /* Fancy */ Added a reply.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 50)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==???==<br />
<br />
Why did you delete your talk page? --Redrum 14:29, 29 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I also don't expect myself to spend the time to correct your mistake "just you like it", if that's what you mean with your edit summary. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:49, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand this comment, GD. I took GA's comment of "thanks for nothing" to be indicative of his frustration toward the wiki in general, and not referring specifically to your undeleting of this talk page. And I do think you should have blanked this page after restoring it; it takes literally two seconds to press Ctrl+A &rarr; Backspace. Though I'm not sure why GA deleted his talk page instead of blanking it. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:31, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I deleted it because I thought I could, as it's my own talk page. There was no malice behind it; it quite literally has my name on it, so I assumed it was fine. I don't remember why I wanted to delete it, TBH. I also don't really care if it's deleted, which is why I acknowledged that maybe it'll be restored and that's fine; I just wanted it to be blanked if anyone wanted to go through the trouble of going against my wish to have my talk page deleted. Like Geodude said, it'd have been quick to do since you already spent the time to correct my "mistake."<br />
::Again, no malice. Sorry if I offended, GD. Like Geodude said, I'm overall deflated these days and that edit summary could have been directed towards anyone, even myself.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm still confused as to why you suddenly got very cynical... did something happen between you and GD? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::It was a whole ''THING''. There are a few different pages you should read if you want to catch up on the wikidrama; off the top of my head some important ones are [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/GamerAim (2)|GamerAim's RfA]], [[D&D Wiki talk:Social Media#Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server|the discussion surrounding GamerAim's Discord server]], [[User talk:Jwguy#Resignation|Jwguy's resignation as admin]], [[Help talk:Warning Policy#GamerAim|the discussion around GamerAim's warning]], and [[D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SgtLion (2)|SgtLion's RfA]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 17:56, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okey dokey... so is GamerAim still an admin or what? --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::GamerAim is still an admin, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:26, 17 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I must ask that you don't answer questions for me on my talk page, Geodude671. It was directed exclusively at me and ''my'' relationship with GD.<br />
:::::::But yes, there was drama over me disagreeing with how Green Dragon chose to run D&D Wiki and how he chose to let others run it as well. Jwguy's resignation isn't relevant, and there was also some stuff involving ConcealedLight's warnings, multiple discussions about Discord (they should be on that same page as the one linked) and probably more. However, I won't link them because at this point I don't care; GD made his decisions, and as much as it may hurt me, I accept that he and I have differing opinions on what D&D Wiki should be.<br />
:::::::I intend to be the last remaining D&D Wiki admin when Geodude671, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan and Quincy are gone. Though honestly, I doubt I'll outlive Geodude; whatever our relationship, I have to admit he's a persistent little bugger ;) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:17, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::"''Challenge Accepted!'' ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::@Cosmos, if you do read those pages, take them with a grain of salt. They are nothing but a blip of the things that occurred in the last 2 years and don't even begin to reveal the tip of an iceberg. GamerAim's reply is most appropriate for the matter and I hope you can focus on that versus anything else. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I hope this doesn't turn into Manga-style fights! --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:01, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Tsunami Bomb==<br />
<br />
How much "Force" will it take to start a tsunami by a man-made Device? --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 9 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, I'm not a meteorologist. The "butterfly effect" posits that even a small amount of force could create a hurricane. A tsunami could probably be created with a couple megaton bomb.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why would anyone (outside of a villain) want to create a GIANT tidalwave? --Redrum 18:02, 16 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Megatons is bigger than what I had in mind. I was hoping to create something that would take out a couple of coastal goblin "villages"!!!--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 17:24, 23 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==5e Wedding Crasher==<br />
<br />
My main 5e character has been hired to disrupt a wedding. I have access to a trick box that causes 1d4 fire damage when opened and some itching powder. I may want suggestions for other items (and/or spells). --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 13:05, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==experiment 78==<br />
<br />
Has anyone thought of a mind switching carpet?--Redrum 13:56, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure I understand what kind of item you are talking about... I see it is a carpet, but what is the "mind-switching" part? Not sure what that is supposed to do. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 14:57, 9 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I think he means when 2 people stand on it (and maybe move around the right way) their minds (and/or souls) switch bodies. --[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:49, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Crystal Seer==<br />
<br />
There is nothing that says a crystal ball can't be in the shape of a crystal skull, right?--[[Special:Contributions/63.142.81.74|63.142.81.74]] 16:47, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Right...? Also, I keep seeing you comment on this Talk page, you do know that 1. You can make an account (which I suggest, seeing how often you get on here) and 2. GamerAim isn't exactly quite as active anymore (from what I've seen anyways) and so you might get admin responses faster on the Talk pages of other admins such as Green Dragon, Geodude, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy, or Masmurine. --[[User:Cosmos|Cosmos]] ([[User talk:Cosmos|talk]]) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::63.142.81.74, There is nothing that says crystal balls can't be in the shape of crystal skulls. My question to you is why do you ask? --Redrum 14:51, 16 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Fancy ==<br />
<br />
Hey dude/dudette! You'd shown your "face" a bit and now you been MIA awhile. I hope your kicking some school but and things are good. Cheers GA! ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. I'm not happy to see that the background (and indeed, the whole theme) has changed to something...well...not as aesthetically-pleasing. But I'm fine, otherwise.<br />
<br />
:<s>Seriously, the site looks amateurish now. What's up with that? I guess it's a good visual representation of everything I did to improve our reputation going down the drain...</s>--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (MDT)</div>GamerAim