Talk:Elven High Mage (PI Prestige Class)

[edit] Continued Discussion of "An idea?"

So before this page gets possibly deleted, let's finish up with this discussion. On WotC forums, there is a thread that lists the code of conduct. I've extracted the part relevant to this discussion:

Copyright

• It is fine to post small amounts of data from a book to give a taste of what something or someone is like; or to make your point in a discussion.
• It is not fine to make a post that allows someone to get a large amount of detailed information without buying a book. This includes posting the information; offering to send it via email or message; or posting a link to a site where you can get the data
• It is not fine to simply "cut and paste" someone else’s work - no matter if this was posted on the net or not.
• It is not fine to make a post encouraging someone else to break copyright. As an example asking someone to scan a few pages and email them to you is a breach of copyright, and will be treated the same as any other breach of the Code of Conduct.

To sum up the spirit of copyright – it is ok to refer to something and even post snippets of that work, but you should not give enough information for people not to have to buy or read the original work. For a more detailed but really easy to read look at copyright go to 10 Big Myths about copyright explained Please note … this link is used with permission.

I'm guessing this is how Crystal Keep is allowed to display copyrighted content on their site. —Sledged (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2007 (MDT)

I don't see any problem (in terms of copyright) with leaving this page as-is. It's not like it's usable. Whether it contributes anything useful to the site is another question ...

Another place where this was done right - meaning it's totally useless without the book - is DnD Combat Form Feats. –Cúthalion (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2007 (MDT)

I used this class as an example because one of the NPCs has levels in this class. When I run into an article that references a material that is Product Identity, pages like this one will let know where to find the material in question. And if I reference said material myself, I can just hyper-link the monster/feat/class/race/etc name, instead of creating a slew of superscripts and footnotes (which is what I do now). If we go ahead with this, my question is how would everyone feel about having a namespace specifically for abbreviated official (non-OGC) material? I'm of the opinion it would be just as useful as the SRD namespace; A user can search the abbreviated content without getting results from rest of the wiki. —Sledged (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

Hm... I feel that it would be well used, however my only question is as to where it would fit on D&D Wiki. I am all for this idea of adding basic information about a D&D Class that cannot be posted here, however I have zero idea as to where it would fit in. Once we figure out that I think this should be done. Any ideas as to where they would fit in? --Green Dragon 21:07, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

We could have collection of consolidated indices of official material similar to WotC's feat index. We'd link the page containing links to all the indices from the main page, and link each individual index from the relevant pages in DnD subpages. —Sledged (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

I guess I agree - linking reference things from the main page is the best... I say go for it :). --Green Dragon 21:41, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

What do you think about them having their own namespace? —Sledged (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2007 (MDT)

I think they should... Namespaces make keeping different sections radically different easy. --Green Dragon 16:43, 23 August 2007 (MDT)

How does the "Wizards" namespace sound? —Sledged (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2007 (MDT)

How about "Verboten"?

Seriously, I'd go for a name that gets at the idea of Product Identity. I'm presuming "Product Identity" is too long. Maybe "Product"? "ProdId"? –Cúthalion (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2007 (MDT)

I kinda like the sound of "Published", since I doubt it will end up just including Wizards material... --Green Dragon 12:45, 26 August 2007 (MDT)

"Published" is too broad, because that would include OGC material as well. I think Cúthalion's suggestion of "ProdId" is probably best, or "Prod Id." —Sledged (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2007 (MDT)

Now that I think about it, I like "Product Identity" best, even if it does seem a bit long. —Sledged (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)

I agree with "Product Identity". --Green Dragon 22:05, 29 August 2007 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

So, should we make a PI namespace and have all WotC products join that namespace? --Green Dragon 17:18, 18 January 2008 (MST)

By "products," do you mean just the individual components (i.e. feats, classes, spells, etc...) or do you mean the sourcebooks, too? I say yay to the former but nay to the latter. —Sledged (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (MST)

I really cannot get a grip around this issue in my head, that's why I have taken so long to respond. The issue is that I just cannot see how we should organize all the d20 publications. First off are we just going to have the books and links to the site where they originate, or are we going to have the books as well as excerpts from those books? Is that really totally legal? Will anyone really have the time to add excerpts? Will people really use excerpts? --Green Dragon 01:18, 23 January 2008 (MST)

Here's my pipe dream. In addition to the currently given information, each book will list what feats, classes, spells, races, monsters, etc are contained within along with page numbers and brief summaries. I've started doing this in a limited capacity with feats. Races of Faerûn has the feats listed in comments. I plan on uncommenting them as soon as they're formatted. Continuing on, each item listed will have a link to a page that gives a bit more info like Elven High Mage (PI Prestige Class). As far as legality, we can get away with abbreviated content. It has to be set up so that users still have to have the book in question in order to make use of said items.

As far as adding them, unless someone is willing to dedicate the time, I say each item be done on an "as-convenient" basis. Whenever someone puts together an NPC, PrC, or creature that references a Product Identity component, we ask them to fill out the page for the feat/spell/class/whatever, we give explicit guidelines on how much can be posted.

As for people using them, only time will tell, but at WotC forums and EN World forums, it's not uncommon for Crystal Keep come up during discussions. —Sledged (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (MST)

I think that it the perfect idea, and hopefully your dream becomes a reality soon :). One question: Do we want to use the namespace for everything or just the excerpts? --Green Dragon 22:57, 23 January 2008 (MST)

I say just for the excerpts. —Sledged (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2008 (MST)