Talk:DnD Links

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Kingdoms of Kalamar[edit]

I recently started working Kalamar as a setting in my tabletop games, and would love to post some information here... But that would take too long right now. HOWEVER, could we put the link to the Living Kingdoms of Kalamar website? Link: http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=25_28 Thanks! -- xido 10:33, 19 September 2007 (MDT)

Very usefull links[edit]

Here are a few links that I find VERY usefull. Sinse I am unclear about copyright rules I felt it was better to post them here in discussion. Feel free to add or delete them as you see fit.

I find these links to be very usefull in my own campain writing.

http://nine.frenchboys.net/ The best name genorator I have found. Simple and effective.

http://www.pathguy.com/cg35.htm A very good charecter genoration tool. I use this for all the importaint NPCs that I make. Also, it helps to put a players charecter through this so you can double check your math.

http://www.20000-names.com/ Lots of good names. The website is annoyingly full of advertisments.

http://www.aarg.net/~minam/npc2.cgi A good NPC genorator. It is faster and more random then the genorator above, and also will create multiple charecters at once. It will add a few random background details that are usefull for when your players start asking annoying questions.

http://forums.rpghost.com/ This Forum looks usefull, but I havnt had time to explore it much. I cant recomend it yet but I hope I will be able to soon.

--Mander 15:57, 1 December 2007 (MST)

Free free to add them, they all look good. --Green Dragon 23:14, 4 December 2007 (MST)
Sweet. Dont add them for me, I need to learn this stuff. --Mander 14:24, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Okay, will do. --Green Dragon 14:34, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Um... cant seem to find an edit button. Apparently I failed my seach check.--Mander 14:37, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Ah... I forgot to check if this page is protected, which it is. I will un-protect it until you have added them (about half an hour). --Green Dragon 14:42, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Sorry about the bad timing. I logged out right after my last post, and didnt check back untell now. I can't make the change today because right now it is (trumpit fanfare!) game time! Im sure you wouldn't hold THAT against me.--Mander 16:57, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Not at all :). I'll just leave it unlocked until you edit it. --Green Dragon 18:48, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Done --Mander 14:51, 6 December 2007 (MST)
Thanks for doing that, and that page has been locked again. --Green Dragon

Point Buy Calculator[edit]

I found a quick-to-load, quick-to-run point buy calcuator at http://www.hackslash.net/?p=73. It's probably fairly basic, but was a godsend to me as a noobie. There are some other D&D typish tools at the site as well. --Arohanui 13:26, 17 January 2008 (MST)

I have added it. --Green Dragon 20:00, 18 January 2008 (MST)

Character Sheet[edit]

Personally one of my favorite character sheets. Well organized and color coded for easy use. Created by SombreNote {{Unsigned|76.111.162.234|18:47, 8 April 2008 (MST)}

To add this we would need a static link which does not just redirect the visitor to another link. If you can supply such a link this will be considered. --Green Dragon 02:00, 9 April 2008 (MDT)
I changed the link to the download page.

Useful resources[edit]

I'd like to post some websites that have useful, and *free* resources.

The first is Planewalker--Spells, Creatures, and Equipment


http://www.planewalker.com/snail/travel.php (the spells)

http://www.planewalker.com/snail/equipment.php (the equipment, the top section is for undefined items and the lower sections have equipment, magical items, and artifacts)

http://www.planewalker.com/codex/monsters.php (creatures)

Naming Error[edit]

Basic DnD is reproduced as Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC is ADnD 1st edition, which are different games.

New Campaign World[edit]

http://www.zyanyacampaign.com/ - Has a lot of free content, as well as forums and chatrooms for gaming.

New Section?[edit]

Should we add a section of links to Gaming Organizations/Groups, such as RPGA, O.G.R.E.s, Ultimate Gamers, etc?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:14, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Useful Links[edit]

if we're adding links to this page, my hands down favorite refrence is Pen Paper Pixel they have spell filters, monster filters, encounter calculators (for XP and loot), and of course a lovely dice bag. Not to mention a very helpful, auto-updating PDF character sheet, which everyone in my party uses. --Badger 07:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Eddition[edit]

All DnD pages are being moved to their corresponding editions. This paqe needs to be moved to either 3.5e or 4e. --Vrail 03:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.dnd-wiki.org[edit]

I do not think that this link deserves a spot on this list. The organizational structure as well as much of the content is under a different license and in all reality one needs to start a court case and get it removed from this violation of law. As such I do not think that it is a a good idea to direct users there. --Green Dragon 11:30, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

According to the bottom page of their wiki, you are free to copy, transmit, adapt, or distribute anything on their site, as long as you attribute it properly. As long as you don't take their content, and then modify and sell it, you're within legal bounds. I see no reason why we should remove a link because you don't like their organizational structure. I am positively disgusted by the Grand OGL wiki, but I don't complain about that site. I've been there, realized I don't like the way they do things, and haven't been back. --Badger 13:46, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
This is getting a little ridiculous. It's obvious that GD doesn't like the other wiki, and is finding excuses to keep from linking there. If someone would just come out and explain what the big problem is then maybe this would all make sense. JazzMan 15:41, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
Much of the content is from here. That's where the problem is. It's not whatever Badger is talking about. --Green Dragon 15:53, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
This wiki used to claim that users could remove *their own* content at any time. When users started to, this wiki outright changed the content rules, and Green Dragon changed the rules, literally claimed ownership over things other people wrote, and now wants to sue people for posting their own classes elsewhere. 24.131.19.27 16:52, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
Really? This has nothing to do with D&D Wiki policies. It's unlawful. D&D Wiki is not a government/international treaty. The answer to your question lies elswhere– see pages like Wikipedia's Terms of Use. How do they have reuse things? --Green Dragon 16:53, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
I removed this link as directing users these does not make sense for it is uncertain what they expect of users as they disregard law. --Green Dragon 20:16, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
I hope you realize that you can be sued for libel for making such anger-motivated false accusations of illegality. And if you tell such lies to police, then you can be charged with making a false police report. Out in the real world, beyond the isolated alternate world that is this wiki, people are sometimes actually held accountable for malicious lies. Archetyper 01:03, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
First, what you have written above here is not understandable English to me. Second, what I think I understand, you don't want to direct users there because they break the law. You still haven't said what law they broke. Quit saying "they aren't a government/international treaty", actually tell me what they did. --Badger 20:33, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
I thought I did. Did you end up checking how Wikipedia's Terms of Use work? --Green Dragon 20:41, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
I just read the ToU, and here's what I have: "For any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". According to the bottom of their page, it says "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" which exactly what is required by the rules. Every seems fair and legal to me. --Badger 20:55, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
Right. So how are things under the GNU FDL v1.2 suddenly somehow not? --Green Dragon 21:02, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
Actually, this begs a new question. I thought our policy was to use Wikipedia's policy? Why are we using GNU FDL, and not CC-BY-SA like they are? --Badger 21:39, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
Why use rules and policies when they wouldn't? Its a site of brutish users (mostly, not all) and it had devolved far from D&D wiki's purpose. Plus, it seems to be down more than this site. So why send people there? Remove it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:50, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
Hooper, no offense, but what are you going on about? Why use rules and policies when they wouldn't? What policies do we use that they don't? I mean, sure, there are a few things that we do differently, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to add to the Homebrew community. Wikipedia is full of brutish users and downtime, or D&D-wiki.org? Most everyone I've interacted with on either site has seemed quite nice (some are gruff, and some are silly, but the same could be said of this site). I've never seen their servers down, especially compared to the downtime in our past here. They devolved from our purpose here? Are they hosting content for tea parties now, instead of D&D Homebrew? Why would I link people there? I've, on multiple occasions, seen places where users have asked "anyone know how I can get in touch with <User on other Wiki>?". It would be helpful if I could say "Here, try their talk page on <this site>". --Badger 22:03, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Policies, not licensing. They are different. I agree– people should play D&D, but if a site is not adhering to laws then I don't think that directing people there is a good idea. --Green Dragon 22:09, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
If by "illegal" you mean things like child porn or bootlegs, then sure, we shouldn't post there. But something that we need a team of lawyers to decide whether or not it's breaking the law (and even then, they probably wouldn't all agree)? Probably not that big of a deal. If it's clear we don't endorse it (and it is), then what's the fuss? JazzMan 08:10, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
According to the official GNU FDL 1.3 FAQ, 'The primary change is the addition of section 11. This new provision allows certain materials released under this license to also be used under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0. For more information about exactly what materials can be licensed this way, see the related questions below. As part of this change, we also introduced a new definition in section 1.
  • In order to license an FDL-covered work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, a few conditions must be met:

1. The work must be available under the terms of FDL 1.3, which provides you with this permission. If the work was released under the terms of “the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or (at your option) any later version,” then it meets this criteria.

2. The work must not have any “Cover Texts” or “Invariant Sections.” These are optional features in all versions of the FDL.

3. If the work was originally published somewhere other than a public wiki, it must have been added to a wiki (or some other kind of web site where the general public could review and edit the materials) before November 1, 2008.

4. All FDL-covered material added to Wikipedia before November 1, 2008 satisfies these conditions.

Source: "GFDL v.1.3 FAQ", GNU Project. Free Software Foundation, n.d. Web, 27 May. 2011.

As near as I can tell, the other DnD Wiki is legally allowed to have its content under the Creative Commons. - Anon.
Anon, you are actually incorrect, unfortunately. This wiki uses GNU FDL 1.2 and no licenses can just suddenly retroactively patch a previous license.
The rest is mostly written to Green Dragon:
Green Dragon, you may benefit from reading the following from wikipedia: [1] and [2]. Here are a few facts about the legality of this whole ordeal:
  • Creative works (ie. homebrew in this case) is the property of the author, regardless of what licenses the author decides to release it under.
  • GNU FDL applies to what people other than the author can do with the creative work. Actually, this is the case for any license. The author always owns their own creative work.
  • An author can re-release their own work under multiple licenses.
Having established that, it is pretty clear the other wiki is not violating any laws. There is a case where the GNU FDL might take effect and that is the case of where there are multiple creative contributors (note that copyediting does not count!) and one or more the the contributors do not agree to re-release the content under the new license. I can say with a fair bit of certainty that anything that the other wiki has "taken" was created by singular authors (or at least consenting authors). If you can find any case where this is not true, I am certain that the other wiki would remove the content. From my experience, they are actually far more proactive than this website with respecting proper licensing laws (for example this website does not follow proper image licensing laws or at least isn't clear about what licensing for an image is).
Now, just to make some things perfectly clear, Green Dragon:
  • You do not own the work of other authors.
  • You cannot sue for copyright infringement in place of other authors.
Okay. Legality aside, let's talk about the root reason behind this. It might be a bit of speculation on my part, but someone mentioned that it seemed that you were almost ready to bury the hatchet and stop this nonsense of "don't talk about the other wiki" (that's why I'm even at this site right now). I'm certainly ready to let the past be the past, but you need to understand that it offends people when you muck around with their creative works. I honestly think that this whole business would never have got out of had if that offense wasn't made. We finally relented that, yes, you can totally not delete our creative work because we did choose to license it under FDL and that you might have grounds to remove the author box (but at this point nobody really cares anymore). And now this silly business of suing us for relicensing our own creative works?
Well, it is a bit offensive, frankly. People don't like being told that they don't own their ideas (note: they do). So here is my point: just drop this whole nonsense about legality. You are just reigniting flames by offending the authors from the other wiki and for no real point. You have no actual legal grounds (unless we have messed up in some corner case with multiple authors, in which case it will be corrected -- just let me know). And, you know, it would be nice of you to actually keep the link here. --Aarnott 13:33, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Wrong. Wikipedia is not plagiarized and see also its Terms of Use. You are making something up to suit your needs, which only a country/international treaty can really do. Also, ask the FSF– they have given me the same answer multiple times. Continuing to misinform users will result in repercussions. --Green Dragon 15:24, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Don't threats of lawsuit against this other wiki go against the general idea of open source and creative commons? --80.2.187.238 16:07, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
No. It's about adhering to the law, normally a precursor to understanding one's contribution is in good hands (democracy equates to laws with reason). And what does this have to do with open source or creative commons? --Green Dragon 16:20, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
"Wrong. Wikipedia is not plagiarized and see also its Terms of Use". --Green Dragon
I never said that. Please don't strawman.
"You are making something up to suit your needs, which only a country/international treaty can really do."
Really? You actually believe that I'm just making up things to do with authorship laws? This page from wikipedia [3] explains quite succinctly that every single edit a user makes on a wiki is totally theirs to license. Yes. This means I can take crap I wrote an relicense it freely. That applies to anyone here. If you want some specific excerpts:
  • "A number of users have chosen to release their contributions under some other license, or even to release their contributions into the public domain. Dual- or multi-licensing is not required or suggested by Wikipedia, but some users—for a variety of ideological or other reasons—prefer to release their contributions under a wider range of terms."
    • Yes -- we get to choose what happens to our stuff even after the first licensing.
  • "In general, users make their multi-licensing desires known on their user page by way of a banner or some description of their wishes"
"Also, ask the FSF– they have given me the same answer multiple times."
What answer have they given and to what?
"Continuing to misinform users will result in repercussions."
I assume a warning/banning? I'm the one who is coming with some actual facts and evidence to back my claims up. Or were you talking about yourself there? --Aarnott 17:19, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Oh yeah. This too [4]:
  • "These exemptions allow a GFDL-based collaborative project with multiple authors to transition to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (which would normally require the permission of every author), if the work satisfies several conditions" (emphasis is mine). --Aarnott 17:25, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
"However, individual contributions are not by themselves derivative works because they do not contain any of the original work, as the copyright still remains with the author. It is within one's rights to license those contributions under any terms one prefers, so long as one does it in addition to also being covered under the CC-BY-SA license." – have you read the GNU FDL v1.2? A single period in a sentence does not mean that is how it is, end of story. --Green Dragon 17:29, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Green Dragon, did they steal any work you authored? My guess is no. If no one has come to them with a legit claim of "you stole my class 'Forest Avenger'", then I suspect original authors consented to this re-licensing of their works under CC-BY-SA. --Badger 17:39, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Yes, they did. Much of my work, for example, was stolen. --Green Dragon 17:48, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Considering individual contributions don't count toward "your work", as your above comment clearly indicates, I am genuinely surprised by that. I recall having to move over any of my contributions I wanted on their wiki. Can you give a specific example of a class, feat, or other page that you wrote that is on their wiki? --Badger 17:55, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
3.5e Homebrew and many spells I worked on, for example. And how does my comment not indicate that also, yes, user contributions are important? And why does this matter? Why is this continuing to be discussed? --Green Dragon 19:32, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
Why are we still discussing this? Because, as the page clearly states, we can continue to discuss this. Clearly some people disagree with your ruling. I am under the impression that any content on their site is there under a second license, and therefore not illegal. You've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. You claim they stole "3.5e Homebrew". What, all of it? That is clearly untrue. Perhaps you mean the page itself? Well, their code is pretty different from ours here, I checked. A bunch of spells you worked on? Again, I notice a distinct lack of names. Furthermore, if they are spells you worked on, rather than created, the original author may have released them under the new license, as I have suggested is likely. This is an important distinction to make, because we are on an MMC. As your citation of the GNU FDL v1.2 clearly states "individual contributions are not by themselves derivative works because they do not contain any of the original work, as the copyright still remains with the author". This means that if I make a spelling correction on a page, I am not considered an author. If you worked on a page by formatting it a certain way, or making a minor change, you don't get to count yourself as the original author. The original author, whomever they may be, may have released their content under a new license. You'd have no way of knowing, as they aren't required to tell you about it. You've not provided any evidence of them committing a crime, but continue to accuse them of ones. That, my friend, is why we are still discussing this.
On another note, if you are going to hand out warnings on this page, may I suggest you give one to Hooper for his direct rudeness to others when he called them "brutish". --Badger 20:44, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Archtyper's comment is right on, as is Badger's; your allegations are not only offensive but also groundless and unprovoked. You're the one treading on risky legal ground by throwing accusations of stealing information when the original authors were well within their rights as the original creators to take their own works elsewhere under a different license. You should give yourself a warning for a change and stop making completely false and unspecified accusations in an issue where you are displaying a clearly distasteful bias towards the other party. You are only causing more problems for yourself by falsely accusing others of wrongdoings that you cannot present evidence to support. - TG Cid 21:14, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
To continue this discussion you need to provide something new to the discussion. As Wikipedia and the FSF does, so does law. Please note "copyright"; "so long as one does it in addition" and please read the GNU FDL v1.2. --Green Dragon 21:36, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
I think I've found the root of the problem here. Green Dragon, when you read the GNU FDL v1.2, you read this part:
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
—GNU FDL v1.2, bold added for emphasis
Here's the problem: That bolded section refers to additional conditions added to the GNU FDL content. It means if it is only released under GNU FDL v1.2, then you can't add on conditions like "you must pay me a royalty for every copy sold". That line, however, does not restrict relicensing. Any content on D&D-Wiki.Org has been relicensed, and is not bound by the rules of the GNU FDL v1.2 as they are on this wiki. I'd like to end this comment as I end so many others: Nothing illegal is going on. --Badger 22:18, 29 May 2011 (MDT)
Did you read section 9? --Green Dragon 22:21, 29 May 2011 (MDT)
I have read Section 9. The clause you are referring to states that you may have no other conditions. Relicensing does not qualify as a condition. --Badger 00:00, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
What are the conditions of the new license? The FSF would not have overlooked something like this when I asked them. --Green Dragon 00:06, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Considering it's not under GNU FDL v1.2 it shouldn't even matter, but here are the conditions:
  • You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.
  • If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
It's in the same spirit as the GNU FDL v1.2, but is specially designed for wikis and other MMCs. It is the standard CC-BY-SA. Really, it's the license we should be using, but that's a different discussion. --Badger 00:20, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Discussion moved from User Talk:Hooper#On DnD Links and Alternate Communities. --Green Dragon 01:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
I almost completely agree with you. I am totally content focusing on a single wiki. I spend nearly all my time here. I only check them when we're down here. I don't see why we should pretend they don't exist, though. Sometimes we'll get a user who has a question that could be better addressed by them. In the spirit of communal nerd building, we might as well allow links. If someone wants to support a campaign over there to allow links to here, I'm guessing they'd be ok with that. They might not send a lot our way, but I doubt they'd fight links that were well placed and reasonable. -- Badger 22:31, 29 May 2011 (MDT)
Yeah. I personally feel like saying "lets not go out of our way to co-link, but if its a common sense linkage by a user, let it be" then we should be okay. But then we get into "what defines common sense link" and all that psycho analyzation.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:13, 29 May 2011 (MDT)
That is a sentiment I completely agree with. I don't expect us to include a little template at the bottom of every page with a "See this link on D&D-Wiki"; I just want to be able to answer a question on a talk page with "If you're trying to get in tough with Eiji, try his talk page <here>", with an external link, and not get banned/blocked/warned for solicitation. I don't imagine we're ever going to merge back into a single wiki, and I'm fine with that. I'm just looking at it from a community standpoint, and I want to be helpful to as many people as I can, and alienate as few as possible. It looks as if Green Dragon is realizing that is a reasonable request. --Badger 00:33, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Right, but still the conditions of the two different licenses are different. I agree allowing links to them is an idea. I would be totally for it save this licensing problem. It really boils down to that if D&D Wiki allows a disregarding of the GNU FDL v1.2 then we creating confusion for users who are submitting with the GNU FDL v1.2 in mind as well as those who desire to use D&D Wiki's content. For example would the Coin Golem (3.5e Creature) have had the same results or would a serious problem have occurred? --Green Dragon 01:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Point of order: what exactly is the FSF you keep referring to? JazzMan 08:42, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
FSF is the Free Software Foundation. They are the people that created the GNU licenses (including the FDL one that this wiki uses). --Aarnott 09:24, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

As for the Coin Golem, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Badger 14:45, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
The Coin Golem (3.5e Creature) was published in Remarkable Races Pathway to Adventure: The Numistian with no licensing problems. Licensing problems could lead to confusions in such instances. --Green Dragon 16:17, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

Lifestyles[edit]

Would any one be opposed to tabletop lifestyle links? Such as RPG advocacy sites like The Escapist and the CAR-PGa? Or maybe tabletop-specific networks like Game Finder or such?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   06:33, 19 June 2011 (MDT)

I definitely like the idea introducing a "lifestyle" section. I happen to know of a few really great blogs that post news and relevant stories (some humorous, others more serious) that I think other people might enjoy. We might even consider including links to various podcasts/vidcasts that are produced (I know of a few). Including links to various Play-by-Post sites might also be a useful addition. --Badger 20:14, 19 June 2011 (MDT)
Sounds good. Which sites? --Green Dragon 16:41, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
Hmm, sites I would recommend for Advocacy are The Escapist and the CAR-PGa. For organizations I'd add RPGA, Pathfinder Society, of course I'm fond of O.G.R.E.s ;), perhaps the WoD groups just as a shared-demographic (OWBN and Camarilla) etc. For game finding groups possibly RPG Game Find, and there are some more out there just can't think of them off the top of my head.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:38, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
Almost fine to add. They all are fine to add save O.G.R.E.S as they have the same licensing problem as the discussion above on some articles. Once that is resolved that are fine to link to. --Green Dragon 14:21, 9 August 2011 (MDT)
The problem resides (to the best of my knowledge at this point) with http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Valgora_Setting . --Green Dragon 13:50, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

Social Networking[edit]

There is a old style Fans of D&D Wiki group on Facebook. It is rarely used and about to delete as Facebook is updating group styles. Perhaps we should consider making a page to promote new users and such. I'd be willing to set it up if no one is opposed.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:37, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

You may do as you please. If we want to provide a link to something official here, I don't know if there is a use for a social networking group (although I also don't have an account on any so maybe I am missing the use). --Green Dragon 16:41, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
It can provide a easy way for the community to network, spread any news, ask for article assistance, etc., and can be awesome for advertising/recruitment. Your brother is on facebook is he not? I believe he was in the old group. But a Page is much more manageable. If a few admins click like, I'll give control over this new D&D Wiki page to them so that those admins who wish to can keep track of it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:22, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
I don't think it's necessary to have facebook relate to D&D Wiki; even through this page. It would put a lot of things which can be done through MediaWiki into an alien medium. The things you mention above can be done through MediaWiki. Networking and article assistance can be done through discussion pages and email. News is done through Template:News. A lot of people I know use facebook. --Green Dragon 18:05, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
The idea isn't so much for the community to be on facebook, as much as it is to have a jumping off point to lead people here. Facebook is basically the majority of the internet's hub right now, and a lot of people don't check other sites very often. By simply liking a D&D Wiki page there, a user can post that they'd like help/review/attention to an article with a link back here and then the discussion would still happen here. Its mostly just a click-through tool to get people out of their rut and onto the site.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:44, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
I see what you mean. It could spread D&D and get more people to play it. This could ultimately lead to more campaigns and more options for players and DM's. Facebook would be a resource, and would deserve to be listed here. The thing is that having pointless links here would confuse players and waste their time. I understand that currently it is popular to like something on facebook. This is being used from city institutes, corporations, to websites. However, the question that remains is who should run the facebook page. I find that D&D Wiki should not as facebook is not a wiki and very different as such. --Green Dragon 20:28, 21 June 2011 (MDT)
I added a link. --Green Dragon 14:23, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

Scribd[edit]

Uhhh, if we aren't allowed to link to the "other" wiki because it may or may not break the law in a handwavy, lawyerly kind of way, then we definitely shouldn't link to Scribed. In 2 minutes of searching I found an illegal copy of a book. Not to mention that it's not a particularly good D&D-centric resource; searching "D&D" didn't come up with anything particularly useful. JazzMan 18:43, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

Yeah. It seems that GD added them because he linked to a book they had uploaded. I've just removed the link because of obvious copyright violations. We might as well remove this link now. --Badger 21:06, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so.
Main Page#Site nominated for an Award, --Green Dragon 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)
I am seeing a disconnect here. --Green Dragon 16:58, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
Ok, ignoring D&D Wiki for now (since clearly we are at the same place we always are with that one), are we allowing links to sites that host illegal activity? The book you link to here is pirated, plain and simple. Other than pirated material, the site itself is neither D&D centric nor full of D&D-related material. JazzMan 20:06, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
Since it is not peer-to-peer the illegality is site-based, so we are not directing users incorrectly. It's comparable to some music videos on YouTube. It, however, also does have some D&D homebrew contributions. Do you think this is not justification? --Green Dragon 20:44, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
Short answer is "it's illegal, whether it's peer-to-peer or not". Your example of Youtube videos is a really bad one, as all of those videos are illegal, too. You'll find that Youtube (just like Scribd) doesn't have the time to monitor every single video for copyright violations, so some sneak past. What they generally do is wait for some company to send them a cease and desist, and they take the content down. Either way, the content is still illegal. While there may be some content on there that is indeed homebrew, the vast majority is just illegal. Some may consider this "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", but that seems to be our policy on this site. If they host any illegal content, we won't link to them at all (see OGRE and the other wiki). Continuing to allow links to this site would be in direct opposition to previous policy, and much worse, in my opinion. --Badger 21:05, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so.
Main Page#Site nominated for an Award, --Green Dragon 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)
I am seeing a disconnect here. --Green Dragon 21:43, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
I agree– people should play D&D, but if a site is not adhering to laws then I don't think that directing people there is a good idea.
Talk:DnD_Links#http:.2F.2Fwww.dnd-wiki.org, --Green Dragon 22:09, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
in all reality one needs to start a court case and get it removed from this violation of law. As such I do not think that it is a a good idea to direct users there
Talk:DnD_Links#http:.2F.2Fwww.dnd-wiki.org, --Green Dragon 11:30, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different.
Talk:Main_Page#Site_nominated_for_an_Award, --Green Dragon 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
I am seeing a disconnect here. The fact of the matter is they are hosting illegal content. You have, as I cited above in my first quote, come out saying in general that linking to sites that don't follow the laws is a bad idea. We don't link to the other wiki because of a licensing issue that makes their content "illegal". You'll note the second above quote which is in direct reference to the other wiki. The third quote I've included implies that links to OGRE will not be allowed until licensing is sorted out. If that doesn't clear up your disconnect, I can't imagine what will. I can assure you, Wizards of the Coast will not releasing their brand new content, for free and in full, online. --Badger 22:22, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
Badger has the right of it. We can't have our cake and eat it too. As a personal gamer - yes, I do have downloaded pdfs. I also own every (literally: every) 3.5 book, but that doesn't make having these pdfs any more legal. Its simply illegal. Regardless of personal feelings, we shouldn't have the website itself link or host the pdfs.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:45, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
This feels circular to me. While we don't have an official rule as to what links are or are not allowed on the wiki, by looking at the ones we already link to one can surmise the following rules:
A) The link can not be affiliated with illegal content
B) The link must be D&D centric or overwhelmingly D&D-based (or roleplaying based)
Scribd fails A, as demonstrated above. You yourself have linked to an illegal book. Scribd also fails B, as it is clearly not a D&D-based site, nor is any large fraction of the content there related to D&D. Not only that, but what is there you have to search for yourself -- there is no D&D "hub" from which to find more info; you have to know what you are looking for in the first place. This is the same as us linking to YouTube; there may be some D&D content (maybe videos of someone's game, or a review of a campaign setting), but just adding "youtube.com" to the link list is a little silly. JazzMan 14:24, 12 October 2011 (MDT)
I'm wrong. I think the matter is too faceted to really make a definite decision one way or the other and I agree that it is best to err on the side of caution. I'll remove the link. --Green Dragon 22:03, 12 October 2011 (MDT)

Pictures[edit]

I am very reluctant to add a picture to someone elses page, as they may not like it, so if someone asks for a picture for their page, is it acceptable to link to a suggested picture for the page? --Salasay Δ 18:50, 19 February 2013 (MST)

That is fine. Adding pictures is also fine, since the main contributor can discuss the image in any case. Don't feel shy. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2013 (MST)
Danke schön. --Salasay Δ 18:48, 20 February 2013 (MST)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors