X
MoI a user about this change:
Username
Section of this page

Talk:Main Page

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] 4th edition

I don't really want to recreate the rumours and excitement concerning the upcoming 4th edition, but it looks like we need to think about a way to handle it here. It's pretty sure that there will be two editions in parallel use, at least for a while, so we need a way to separate editions. Tagging articles Category:3.5 and Category:4.0 wouldn't be too hard, what I'm concerned about is article lemmata for articles that exists in different versions for different editions.

Also, it's not clear yet whether there will be a 4th edition SRD. I hope there will be one. --Mkill 08:50, 16 August 2007 (MDT)

Might be a good idea to put SRD 3.5 articles with a template underneath (this is only a suggestion, not an attempt to have a million templates per page):

This material is published under the V3.5 rules.
→More
Although, there might be too many templates if we do this. perhaps we could replace the SRD template to this for 3.5 articles:
This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page. This material is for the D&D V 3.5 rules.
We don't really need to mark homebrew stuff- it should work for 4.0 rules anyway. Whatre can I find news on the 4th edition, anyway? --Sam Kay 09:10, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Have you been at the WotC Homepage lately? Did you notice something? --Mkill 09:48, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
If 4e is really coming out we can most likely just slap on a small template on all 4e things or all 3.5e things. Also, the categories you said above will work. I do not see it as too much of a problem... --Green Dragon 10:55, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
According to my reasearch, it ios not out until 2011 (rather silly really; why advertise it four and a bit years before its release), so we really do not have to bother with it yet, anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Kay (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 August 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Boo! Hsssss! I had a browser tab open for the last ten minutes of the countdown of the D&D page. Once it finished, I got "Service Unavailable". About as disappointing as 3.0 psionics. —Sledged (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Lol :). --Green Dragon 16:38, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
4th edition is definitely coming. We really need to sit down, argue, butt heads, and work out the namespacing issues now. Thankfully, 3E has a namespace already. We have lots to sort out. Wikiworld will instantly be 4th compatible, as I haven't bothered with stats for most of the writeup. The new MIC style items should also be compatible. There are interesting times ahead. --Dmilewski 18:39, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
It has been stated that the PHB will be out May '08 MM June '08 and DMG July '08 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quill (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 August 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Yes, we have a year to prepare but it makes it easier later if we start thinking about it now. Btw., I'm still waiting for the WotC Homepage to survive sudden massive attention so I can see the official WotC Press release... --Mkill 03:22, 17 August 2007 (MDT)
Just do what I suggested and replace the OGC tgemplate with:
This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page. This material is for the D&D V 3.5 rules.
It is alot easier to mark 3.5 in this way. You could also add an image to the template to mark it, I suppose. --Sam Kay 04:30, 17 August 2007 (MDT)
I vote to leave the V3.5 on the wiki pemanently (unless the wiki runs out of memory), as some people will still use V3.5. --Sam Kay 09:39, 17 August 2007 (MDT)
Btw, here it says that Wizards announced to continue the OGL. Good decision. --Mkill 09:45, 17 August 2007 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Can we get a 4E Info/Rumor link up on the landing page? (Though we may as well link it to ENWorld. They will have the best coverage.) ENWorld 4E Page It hasn't been updated yet, but it will be. --Dmilewski 14:19, 17 August 2007 (MDT)
Great! it will be nice to have 4.0e on the wiki.--Sam Kay 08:27, 18 August 2007 (MDT)
A few things. First off we need to figure out if the homebrew material will be compatible with 4e, if it is we are well off. If it is not we need to figure out how we are going to categorize the 3.5e and the 4e homebrew information separately. Oh, and yes, D&D Wiki has enough space to keep the 3.5e material - nothing need ever be deleted to save space on D&D Wiki. Secondly, if we want a link to 4e information from ENWorld then, I feel, that we should add it as a news item. Dmilewski can take care of this if this is the communities decision. Thirdly we need to figure out when the 4e SRD is coming out to see how much time we have to prepare for it. About the SRD (3.5e and 4e); we need to decide if we want a different namespace for the two SRD editions or if we want to organize them by their identifiers. Anyway, if the homebrew information is compatible we are looking at not too much work (and a much more useful and successful D&D Wiki). Let us hope... :). --Green Dragon 12:10, 18 August 2007 (MDT)
I think ther homebrew stuff will mostlky ber compatable with 4e, but if not we will have to work to update the best stuff... --Sam Kay 12:22, 18 August 2007 (MDT)
Either the homebrew material is almost 100% good-to-go or it is not. We cannot have a medium on D&D Wiki. The reason we can not have a medium is because many many people will not switch over to 4e for a long time (or ever!) and we do want want these people to lose D&D Wiki as a recourse. If the two editions are not compatible we will have to have two separate pages like Dungeons and Dragons and we will have to have 3.5e classes, races, etc and 4e classes, races, etc. Again, we need to really know if they will be compatible or not (and if someone has any information please cite the source). --Green Dragon 12:32, 18 August 2007 (MDT)
Yeah, I know, I was meaning as they are now... I have had a look at the articles on WotC website, and I seem to remember that the playtest report mentioned that a player was playing a psyon (because it was 3.5e) to see if it was compatible.--Sam Kay 12:42, 18 August 2007 (MDT)
I volenteer to help updating homberew stuff to 4e should the need arise (hopefully it won't). --Sam Kay 12:54, 18 August 2007 (MDT)
I think that conversion of each section should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, magic items may only need a level assigned to them. That's an easy conversion worth doing. Classes and prestige classes will need to be entirely rewritten as trees, maneuvers, or such, if they are worth translating at all.
My current belief is that we will need to split the content. That hoses the entire redirect initiative. (That was a reservation of mine with the redirect initiative. All the pages that I did for the SRD were hard-referenced. I used no redirects.)
Campaign environments will be easiest to convert. Many simply implement the existing system, then list some house rules. For example, LotR and Wikiworld are both concept heavy, rules light. Wikiworld has always been rules light, as I wanted Wikiworld to work with any game system. I suggest that Sam keep LotR rules light, so as to keep it universal.
I was at GenCon when they made the announcement of 4e. According to Wizards of the Coast, the 3.5e material will be compatible with a minimum of modification. There were no details given at the time, however, so what that means, I'm not sure. --Skwyd 14:04, 23 August 2007 (MDT)
Many classes and (both base and prestige) might be obsolete under the new rules- if the same effect can be made just by using talents on one of the other classes. I think we'll have to make a big review of everything and check it for 4e compatibility, maybe putting a 4e Compatible template and a 4e Incompatible template (and nothing on pages that haven't nbeen checked yet, obviously). MorkaisChosen 08:25, 3 November 2007 (MDT)
Or we could just keep 3.5e material 3.5e material, since not everyone is going to switch right away... Maybe keep it for a couple years than change it to 4e. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 16:16, 4 November 2007 (MST)

I read on the Wizards page that one thing they're thinking of implementing with all the online stuff they're using in 4th ed is a wiki to allow home brew stuff. If that's true, it may be best to just keep this site in 3.x to avoid competition with the "official" wiki. I'm still uncertain about all that though. Any thoughts? --Banyan 23:07, 23 August 2007 (MDT)

I don't think a little competition will hurt. If Wizards opens their own wiki, that's an excellent idea, but it doesn't mean we should give up this project here. --Mkill 00:57, 24 August 2007 (MDT)
I wouldn't bother with the "official wiki" anyway. This one is better. Anyway, why would we be scared of competition? It is not like we are trying to make money, or anything. --Sam Kay 04:00, 24 August 2007 (MDT)
Would someone like to contact them and ask them if this is true? --Green Dragon 12:35, 26 August 2007 (MDT)

[edit] New Edition Issues

The following questions are both technical and procedural. There is no correct answer. These questions are here to collect upcoming issues with the wiki and decisions that should be considered. Please add to the list.

[edit] General architecture

How best to manage a wiki filled with multiple editions and systems (3E, 4E, Modern, Etc.)

I am very open to discussion, but I feel that the best way to manage different systems is to make the different edition pages very obvious. For example, we could have all namespace v4 pages come with a slightly darker page background, or something similar. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2007 (MDT)
I agree. The Wizards message boards use a different skin for each game. –Cúthalion (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2007 (MDT)
I am against the changing of the skin, however I think namespaces are the way to go. We could label the namespaces as SRD3.5e, SRD4e, 4e, 3.5e, D20M, etc. What do you guys think about this idea? --Green Dragon 21:11, 22 August 2007 (MDT)
People will be far too confused if they want to know whether the article is 3.5 or 4.0, and they constantly have to be checking namespaces. It will be much easier if the page background is slightly darker for 4.0, or something similar. I am not talking about a different feel, just a difference. There is a difference :) — Blue Dragon (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2007 (MDT)
Why not have two menu pages, one for each edition, and label all pages with 3.5 and 4.0? --Sam Kay 04:02, 24 August 2007 (MDT)
Sam Kay, do you mean namespaces? --Green Dragon 13:04, 26 August 2007 (MDT)
Yeah... I did. --Sam Kay 06:23, 1 September 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Namespaces

Should we move current SRD pages to a 3E namespace?

I assume you mean 3.5E namespace, and I feel that we need to wait a bit until the structure is clear and known to all, but I feel that it definitely needs to happen before 4E comes out. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

How do we want the namespaces to interact?

Why not have two D&D menus: 3.5, and 4.0. That way, you would know whether you where in 3.5 or 4.0. --Sam Kay 10:33, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

What should we do with articles that are invariant between 3E and 4E (assuming there are any)?

This brings up another question: It would be great if there was a way to allow edits on a 3.5E to be reflected, or maybe a reflection would be requested, onto a 4E page. This way the races or whatnot would remain the same. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2007 (MDT)
I've been wrestling with related questions on WikiRPS. It's easy to have small (or even large) pieces of shared text, using a template. But what if the bulk of the text is shared, but just the numbers scattered throughout the text are different (for instance)? As far as I know, the only way to do it is to modularize the text into templates as much as possible. –Cúthalion (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

Redirects point to 3E SRD. Is there a way to have namespace relative redirects, where [[foo]] inside the [[SRD]] context points to [[SRD:Foo]] while [[foo]] in the 4E context points to [[SRD4:Foo]].

I don't think it's possible, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. –Cúthalion (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2007 (MDT)
It would be possible with a few minor hacks. However, this will lead to a very confusing website. I am against the idea. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Templates

What templates should be used to tag 3E and 4E pages?

[edit] Homebrew

Should homebrew rules be tagged by edition?

I strongly feel so. Everything is specific to a version if it falls back on D&D. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2007 (MDT)
That depends on whether it is edition specific or not: WotC declaired that 3.5e would be compatable with 4.0e --Sam Kay 06:19, 1 September 2007 (MDT)--Sam Kay 06:19, 1 September 2007 (MDT)
Im new here just signed up today but was reading through this and had something to say. According to the Dnd podcast 4ed is not fully compatible with 3.5, They imply that if you want to use a lot of stuff it will have to be updated. In fact they go so far as to say that you may even have to recreate things from the ground up. So separating old material and new material will be nessacary. I'd suggest tagging everything now 3.5. then creating a menu with two separate sections 3.5 and 4 and go through a process of reviewing and or editing the old material and copy it over to the new namespace.Hawk 07:16, 5 February 2008 (MST)
Not nessassaraly- look as CSs- they are mostly background stuff, therefore, they have no

need of a tag for either 3.5 or 4. Deities might not, depending on rule changes. Enviroments will not, as it is mostly descriptive stuff. And they said that it would a be a case-by-case thing. Plus, changing the DnD category to 3.5e would take forever. there are about 4000 articles (I think) here. Better to leave them as DnD, and add 4e. Which has been done. And anyway, I said "compatable" not "fully compatable". They mean slightly different things: one means that some suff may need minor changes, others would need alot, the other means that you could just drop it into a game. --Sam Kay 09:36, 5 February 2008 (MST)

Should campaigns get their own namespace, or belong to their intended edition?

I feel that campaigns should not get their own namespaces because it would remove the items in the campaign from D&D Wiki linking schemes, etc. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Site conversion

How best to automate changes?

Should 3E redirect be systematically replace with hard page references?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example? –Cúthalion (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2007 (MDT)
I think it means that rather than mentions of "darkvision" being linked to the darkvision page it says what page information about darkvision can be found at in the core rule books. If so, I am against the idea. --Sam Kay 04:09, 6 October 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Another 4e Option

I can't help but feel that the cleanest solution would to be just host a completely separate wiki specifically for 4E, and just circumvent all the aforementioned issues. —Sledged (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (MDT)

I agree—having a separate wiki would be very clean, but it may not be as useful, since one would have to switch between the wiki for different versions of D&D. However, I am starting to like the idea... --Green Dragon 22:24, 21 October 2007 (MDT)
Well, I think the ease of having a separate wiki would probably be more valuable than the "convenience" of having them together. Also, my understanding is that 4E is not nearly so compatible with 3.5E. So, perhaps the "clean slate" concept would be much better. --Skwyd 10:02, 22 October 2007 (MDT)
From what I'm reading it seems like it'll about as compatible as 2e is to 3e.
Also, let's not forget that the above issues are merely the ones of which we can conceive. With projects this size, more issues always arise after implementation.
4ed20wiki.com anyone? —Sledged (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2007 (MDT)
Wizards did say 4e would be compatible with 3e with a minor amount of modification. Why not have two sub-main pages within this wiki? On the main page you have links to 3rd edition D20 and 4th edition D20. Then each edition could have it's own sub-main page just like our current main page... That would be like two wikis but without the flicking from wiki to wiki, having two accounts, and the possibility of reduced number of edits on each wiki. Personally, I think it would be better to have one wiki with separate sections. We already have modern and D&D with separate sections on one wiki, so why not do it with 3e and 4e? --Sam Kay 11:16, 28 October 2007 (MDT)
I agree w/ Sam, we should just include a sub-set for D&D 4E like we did for d20 Modern. That way people can have just one account and since 3.5 will be compatible w/ 4E people can still look at all of our 3.5 Stuff and port it over to 4E. Just Create a Dungeons and Dragons 4E Page and a 4ESRD and everything's fine. --Watsyurname529 11:21, 28 October 2007 (MDT)
I know that the "official" announcement was that 4E would be compatible with 3E, however, I've listened to the Podcasts, read much of the forum boards, and tried to pay attention to what is out there and I don't think it will be that compatible. In fact, Dave Noonan said on the D&D Podcast that there won't be a simple process to take a 3E character and just equate it to 4E. The level progression is different, the spread of powers associated with each level will change for each of the classes, and many of the class abilities (especially spell casting) are being changed greatly. Also, monsters are being reworked extensively, and many of the mechanics are being revised, rewritten, or scrapped entirely. I have a feeling that the compatibility will be simply that you can take a story line from a 3E adventure and use it, but the mechanics, though familiar, are not the same. --Skwyd 09:55, 30 October 2007 (MDT)
I still think one wiki would be best. Plus, I have also been reading the announcements, and I think a lot of the things can already be achieved with variants: the saves working like ACs, for example, add 10 to each save, take 10 from the DC, and roll a D20 and add the DC, compare to save. Easy. Critical spells? I have already done a variant for that before they announced it in Design and development. It is on this site under the title Spellcasting. So 3E-4E conversion could be a case of slight modification using variant rules. --Sam Kay 10:31, 30 October 2007 (MDT)
I'm not sure I see exactly how variants address the issue of hosting materials for two different versions of the d20 System. Are you suggesting that for every 4E rule component that's different from the corresponding 3.5 rule, it be put under the DnD Rules or a SRD Variant section? And if so, would this be in addition to or instead of hosting 4E SRD in it's own space?
And since the d20 Modern section was brought up, I never really cared for it being hosted next to the d20 stuff. Admittedly, it hasn't been a problem, but that could be due to the fact that there's far fewer users using that section than the d20 section (if the amount of user-submitted material is any indication). Whether or not 4E material has it's own wiki, I'm definitely against the 4E d20 Modern and d20 Future being hosted on the same wiki.
With the issue of multiple accounts, there's a way to have only one account apply to both wikis. I created an account on a Wikia site a while ago, and it works with all wikis there. Blue would know how complicated such a thing would be to accomplish, and if it'd be worth while. —Sledged (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2007 (MDT)
The answer to your question is no, I was merely stating that I think 3E will be compatible with 4E with a minimal of rule conversion. If we can have one account on two seperate wikis, would it be possible to have a single user page (and talk page) for BOTH wikis? I knows you have seperate pages on wikia... and have links between wikis work as an "inside" link rather than an "external link"? If so, then having two wikis Would be more... better. Erm... More... practical. Although if we could have a united main page for both that lead to each seperate wiki, that would be good too. About 4E modern and D20 future, starwars ect, ect, yadda yadda yadda, I am not really bothered about them. So long as we have 3E and 4E D&D (and 3E modern would be good, although we could completely replace it with 4E modern), then I am happy. --Sam Kay 15:25, 30 October 2007 (MDT)
I have strengthened and decided my view, I am against two wikis for a number of reasons. One is that people would have two user pages, two talk pages, and two recent changes lists would exist. It would become a lot to handle. Another reason is that it would divide visitors between two sites, making it look like dandwiki.com is actually not doing as well as it would be, therefore making it not as popular on google, etc. Another reason I am against it is that people will choose one wiki they like and stick with it, disabling half of our growing user base. It would stop prompting people to join random discussions as much, and stop prompting them to help out as much. Another reason is that structure changes would have to be done twice, the same template made two times, one for each wiki. It seems, to me, like a lot more problems would arise than good would come out of it. I am against making two wikis.
A solution I see to this problem is namespaces. We could have namespaces such as 3.5e, 4e, 3.5eSRD, and 4eSRD to eliminate confusion as to which version something is. I think namespaces would be the best solution to this problem, not separate wikis. Maybe we should vote? --Green Dragon 16:00, 30 October 2007 (MDT)
Sure. Why not? —Sledged (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (MDT)
Done. --Green Dragon 22:19, 31 October 2007 (MDT)
If anyone can see a way to make the voting table below clearer please do. --Green Dragon 10:32, 1 November 2007 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I voted for everything. That's because I believe that we will need our whole toolbox to sort this out.
First, we need to identify the two idea complicating this discussion and table them. I believe that D20 Modern will be best served with it's own sister wiki. Simply by separating it, we greatly simplify our discussion. It then becomes its own discussion (which it deserves). Campaigns also deserves their own discussion.
This greatly simplifies our problem.
We already know that we will need new templates for 4.0. (Fact: see the new creature layout block.) We will also need new page preloads. Layout differences will help us tell one page from another. The new class pages will look different than the old class pages simply by being laid out differently. That does the same job as a skin. We also have footer and header templates that can go into a preload and existing pages.
Namespaces are powerful tools to help us sort out what is what, even at a glance. They provide an absoluteness that chains through everything. The new SRD will most definitely be in a new namespace. For contributor content, I don't see a powerful enough need for a separate namespace when layouts and templates are already providing us good service. Page titles also convey information. Page Title (DnD Page) is different from Page Title (4E Page).
Categories will be directly impacted by namespaces, but the purpose of categories is not in separating pages, but in collecting like pages. If we try to separate pages too much using Categories, all we do is create a complicated set of categories. We have page titles and namespaces to help a user identify what page goes with which system. These should be sufficient.
Finally, there is ignorance. If we make the wiki too complex for contributors, we will lose contributors. Any schema that we invent must be apparent to our average contributor.
That's alot, isn't it?
My belief is that we should make a new namespace for the new SRD, and let the body of the wiki sort itself out with layouts, footers, and linking. Most sections are clearly one edition or the other. The trouble sections (D20 Modern and Campaigns) need their own discussions to sort out. --Dmilewski 07:52, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were putting together an argument for separate wikis. I think this statement sums it up:
If we make the wiki too complex for contributors, we will lose contributors.
There's going to be plenty to worry about with just dealing with one edition without having to worry about how keep the editions separate, and too many of the solutions depend on the users maintaining the separation. Right now we have users assigning incorrect categories or neglecting categories, putting non-SRD material in the SRD namespace, not using the preloads, not putting the " (DnD xxxx)" identifier (or putting the wrong identifier) when they create a page, and so on and so on. Trying to maintain a separation between editions is going to add to the problem. —Sledged (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
Nothing on this earth will stop the symptoms above. Ignorance will always exist. I believe the above are symptoms of too-few editors. We have needed editors patrolling their own areas for a while. We must also admit to ourselves that editing is not very interesting to most of our contributors. I really don't know how to address that issue.
One reason that I don't want separate wikis is that our Campaign section is always among the most popular sections. How do I maintain Wikiworld across two wikis? If our solutions won't work well for campaigns, we will hurt ourselves.--Dmilewski 15:09, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
Also, on the incorrect editing, most random people who post here don't know all the catagories or how to properly code a wiki. I still don't know all the catagories but I usually go find a page that does and copy and paste. So the incorrect editing will always be a problem. I also firmly stand behind the idea of just one wiki, everything in one place. --Watsyurname529 15:28, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
I agree with Dmilewski. Why was the last sysop elected more than half a year ago? It's because we have a large issue with people not wanting to edit the infrastructure of this site. The last editor that really edited the infrastructure was Mkill (albeit with some very controversial edits), who since that time has left D&D Wiki. The infrastructure is not perfect here, many many things need to be improved or are currently wrong, but why is no one stepping up and fixing them? Is D&D Wiki to complex for people to handle? Should we dumb it down? And how do the questions I just asked pertain to 4e material?
Actually, I think the questions I just asked are the core of this issue. A new 4e wiki will eliminate all the issues with people not wanting to edit the infrastructure, and that is why it seems so appealing. It will make a new slate, without D&D Wiki's insane hierarchy (which, by the way, only exists because average users do not edit the infrastructure or help other people's creations on D&D Wiki), and without all of the work that needs to be done on D&D Wiki that is not getting done (publications, dplc's for races, modernizing classes layouts, linking orphaned pages, etc, etc). D&D Wiki has issues, and a new 4e wiki will remove them all... but I don't like to run from my problems.
Yes, D&D Wiki needs some major changes to become what I envision it to be; to become what everyone envisions it to be, but I feel we can accomplish these changes within this current wiki, and just this current wiki. Problems will arise from adding a new edition, but we can solve these problems, we will need to solve these problems... and, of course, the best way to solve these problems is to solve the problem with the average user not editing the infrastructure, because that is where I feel it all stems from. If the average editor feels that D&D Wiki does not just need more content, but rather needs infrastructure help, organizational help, help with making things look good, and help with making everything balanced, then with everyones hard work all the problems on D&D Wiki will soon disappear, creating an environment where adding a new edition will be as smooth as adding a new race. --Green Dragon 16:29, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
Well not everyone wants to just go on a site and edit the way it works just for fun. They might add something but I wouldn't expect them to edit it. Maybe you should try on the equipment page to when you add a new item show some of the various templetes you can use such as the author one and the various catagories you can use. This might help because then you can just copy and paste what you need. I do agree that if we had more people editing and making things right the first or second time then this place would run much smoother. Now I would like to step up and help edit and my area would be the equipment section as I spend most my time there and I am most familar with it. You still might have to make more minor edits to what I have done but I garentee you that there will be less of them. Also, all I would be doing is standardizing and making minor edits as I do not know how to code much more than that; I could learn but that will take time. If you would like me to try to do that I will, it's just anywhere else and I'm not going to be nearly as useful. --Watsyurname529 21:18, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
I really didn't for my post to be a "plea for help" (even though it may have come off like that... :P), but if you want to do something which requires little or no wiki-syntax knowledge thats helps out DnD Equipment please drop a note on my user-talk page and I will help you find something that needs to get done on DnD Equipment. Anyway... back to the subject on hand..... --Green Dragon 22:57, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
When does the vote end? --Sam Kay 10:38, 14 November 2007 (MST)
Does the 5th of December sound okay? --Green Dragon 11:45, 2 December 2007 (MST)
Yeah. I think everybody who wants a vote has voted or will have done by then. We can always send a MOI to people who havent voted. --Sam Kay 10:26, 3 December 2007 (MST)
Okay, the vote is over. Thanks to everyone that voted, and it appears that we will not be making a separate wiki for 4e material (or holding a book burning convention) but rather organize the different edition by way of categories, namespaces, and possibly changing the identifier. Agiain, thanks to everyone that voted :). --Green Dragon 17:05, 5 December 2007 (MST)
So, when are we going to start setting it up for 4e? --Sam Kay 13:40, 15 December 2007 (MST)
Feel free to start whenever you have time... --Green Dragon 21:04, 15 December 2007 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I'd love to, but what do we call the new pages... "4E Dungeons and Dragons", "4E D20 Modern", "4E DnD Base Classes"? --Sam Kay 09:03, 16 December 2007 (MST)
Or "Dungeons and Dragons (4E)?" There's still a few more details that need to be decided. In what namespace will user content be? Main or "4E"? How do we deal with items independent of rules versions (i.e. maps, campaigns and the like)?
Personally, I think we can mirror the 3.5 section by replacing all the instances of "DnD" in all the identifiers with "4E" instead (e.g. "4E Character Options," "4E Feats," "4E Creatures," etc...), and the landing page can just be "Fourth Edition." (I always though "Dungeons and Dragons" and "DnD" were bit of misnomers in this context.) —Sledged (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2007 (MST)
Ok. --Sam Kay 12:33, 16 December 2007 (MST)
I'll start setting it up under 4E Homebrew, 4E Feats, etc. We can move them if need be. If we have stuff under 4E as you suggested, I think DnD should be replaced with 3E or 3.5E for the 3.5 stuff... Thoughts? --Sam Kay 02:18, 22 December 2007 (MST)
Started to set it up- see this page. --Sam Kay 09:17, 22 December 2007 (MST)

[edit] The 4e Movement

I looked over the page and I feel there are a couple kinks to be worked out. First off do we want the pages being labeled as "4E" or "4e"? Secondly, which pages do we want to work with both editions? Should these pages keep the "DnD" while all the other pages would adopt a 3.5e or 4e, respectively, identifier? Thirdly, should we change the descriptions of the sub-pages to say which edition they cover or would that be redundant? --Green Dragon 11:35, 22 December 2007 (MST)

I think 4e, Maps, campaign settings, possibly deities (depending on changes), Environments, Possibly Quests and Disscussion could be shared, yes, they keep DnD, rest become 3.5e or 4e, yes the rest need to say edition sub-pages cover. Any thoughts? --Sam Kay 13:34, 22 December 2007 (MST)
Yes. How can we make the newly implemented dpl on Dungeons and Dragons (thank you so much, Sledged) work with non-specific edition pages in all the main categories (for DM's, for Players, or General)? --Green Dragon 16:27, 24 December 2007 (MST)
Give pages that work for both two categories? --Sam Kay 06:08, 27 December 2007 (MST)
Campaign Settings, Links, Guidelines, etc. --Green Dragon 21:37, 27 December 2007 (MST)
Ok, I have done everything except the spells section and the SRD. I have made a 4e version of the pages that I was not sure of (quests and deities), and linked to both (we delete the 4e one if not required or remove the category if the 4e one is required). What do you think? --Sam Kay 09:27, 23 January 2008 (MST)
One thing is that everything could be piped so it does not say "4e" all the time. I feel that if one is already on the 4e landing page then having 4e before everything would just come off as repetitive. --Green Dragon 11:19, 23 January 2008 (MST)
What do you mean? Like 4e Homebrew/Classes/Base Classes? --Sam Kay 06:51, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Not exactly. I was refering to things like 4e Deities being piped to Deities. It just seems repetitive to be on the 4e page and have everything say 4e before it. --Green Dragon 17:43, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Ok. --Sam Kay 10:18, 25 January 2008 (MST)
[in a robotic voice] TASK COMPLETE. Are there any more tasks to be done on the 4e Homebrew section? --Sam Kay 05:24, 27 January 2008 (MST)
Other than the spells section I really do not see anything else. --Green Dragon 10:20, 28 January 2008 (MST)
Good. Shall we set up the 4e SRD section in the same way so we can just get on with transcribing it when 4e comes out? --Sam Kay 06:58, 3 February 2008 (MST)
I read somewhere that WotC will not be releasing a 4e SRD. I think we need verify or disprove this and then decide what to do from that point. --Green Dragon 09:47, 4 February 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

4E SRD and OGL. —Sledged (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2008 (MST)
"All of the material included in the OGL Designer’s Kit will be available for free starting on June 6, 2008. Parties who find the cost prohibitive can begin developing their products at that time." I guess that means we're able to have the SRD for 4e! --Sam Kay 07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)

[edit] Vote

4e Solution — Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate)
For making a new wiki to encompass 4e material For keeping D&D Wiki as a whole, encompassing all editions Launch a book-burning party which has the goal of burning every 4e book
Think namespaces are the solution to 4e material Think categories are the solution to 4e material Think changing the identifier is the solution to 4e material Think changing the background color/skin is the solution to 4e material Think templates are the solution to 4e material Think that more than one of the aforementioned solutions is the best solution for 4e material (Please say which ones would work best together)
  1. Sledged (w/ New Skin)
  2. Aarnott (What in the current wiki would we want to link to with 4e? That is the only reason I see for keeping it together... Besides usernames I suppose.)
  1. Sol
  2. EldritchNumen
  1. Trogdor
  1. Green Dragon (Namespaces (for SRD material), Categories, Changing the identifier (for homebrew material))
  2. Watsyurname529 (Namespaces, Catagories)
  3. Dmilewski (All the above)
  4. Sam Kay (Namespaces, Categories)
  5. Blue Dragon (Namespaces, Skin)
  6. Pirate-Sorcerer (Namespaces, Categories)
  7. Daniel Draco (Namespaces, Categories)
  8. OptimizationFanatic (Namespaces, Categories)
  1. xido (lacking respect for corporate global capitalism)
  2. othtim - I *like* finger of death.
The option to destroy all D&D4e books in the world is not an option. I am upset about this --Mander 19:20, 30 November 2007 (MST))
LOL! Of course we can't take that action, even if we want to! It is probably unlawful or something. --Sam Kay 05:12, 1 December 2007 (MST)
That option has been added ;). --Green Dragon 21:09, 2 December 2007 (MST)
LETS GO N' BURN THINGS!!! [loads AK47] UPRISING AGAINST THE 4E MENACE!!! --Sam Kay 10:28, 3 December 2007 (MST)
So... tempted... to burn.... withholding... vote til I can... stop talking... like... Shatner... -- Eiji 14:49, 11 February 2008 (MST)

[edit] New Look

I feel that it is high time that we had a new look for the Main Page, for a number of reasons. One is to make it easier for the average user to understand how D&D Wiki is organized, another is so the Main Page looks nicer. Below is my proposed idea, which is still in the works. Also, I have a couple of questions about it. One, should we use DPL2C to determine the number of items in an area. For example around 7353 items exist in Dungeons and Dragons, should we display that below? Also, should we have bullets in front of the link to Dungeons and Dragons, the System Reference Document, etc? Does it look better or worse with them present? Finally, how is the wording of everything? What could be improved? (P.S. the below idea is not mine, it was stolen from Sledged's hard work making Dungeons and Dragons look nice—I do not want to take credit which I do not deserve) --Green Dragon 13:23, 1 November 2007 (MDT)

Yea, the above does look much nicer than the current Main Page, and I do agree it needs an update. As for showing how many things you have in each, that's not necessary but is interesting to see that we have 2900 Homebrew Items, if anything that might bring people in to see that this is a pretty big site and not just some random long forgotten website. --Watsyurname529 14:33, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
I have added the number of items to the new look. Any other ideas? --Green Dragon 15:28, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
This definitely clarified what information is contained in the sections. I would agree with implementing it. — Blue Dragon (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
Let's absolutely add this. The main page definitely needs more information. I like it! –EldritchNumen 16:48, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
I think that if we have 3.5e and 4e on this site, we should have the main page sperating out 3.5e and 4e, and pages for 3.5e and 4e like the above. --Sam Kay 11:56, 2 November 2007 (MDT)
Yes, I agree. But that can be added once 4E comes out... –EldritchNumen 16:30, 2 November 2007 (MDT)
I'm going to implement this now because I think it is so much better (and I want it as soon as possible). Please, though, continue to post comments here about any revisions we could do to make it look better! –EldritchNumen 16:32, 2 November 2007 (MDT)
Yeah, I like it. --Sam Kay 04:38, 3 November 2007 (MDT)
I removed the "d20M" in that SRD link since it is already under the header of d20M. However, I agree, it looks very good and thanks for implementing it. --Green Dragon 13:48, 3 November 2007 (MDT)
Dungeons and Dragons
d20 Modern

[edit] Main Page after 4e comes out

When 4e does come out, we could change it to this:

Dungeons and Dragons
d20 Modern

Any thoughts? --Sam Kay 09:23, 23 January 2008 (MST)

Or this...?
Dungeons and Dragons
Revised 3rd Edition
4th Edition
  • Homebrew
    New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (20 items)
  • The System Reference Document
    Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (0 items)
d20 Modern
--Green Dragon 11:17, 23 January 2008 (MST)
Yeah, that is better than mine. --Sam Kay 06:52, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Is everyone okay with that look once 4e comes out? --Green Dragon 20:12, 24 January 2008 (MST)
I actually prefer Sam's layout although perhaps UA could have it's own line. --Hawk 07:36, 5 March 2008 (MST)
I think Green Dragon's looks better. Sorry Sam ;-) --Daniel Draco 08:38, 5 March 2008 (MST)
I don't mind. As I said earlier, I prefer GDs. I've had a thought; I think we could, and probably should, put the link to the 4th edition homebrew (and possibly the SRD, though we can't put it up yet, for obvious reasons) on the main page, because, as people in ENworld have proved, we have enough preveiw material from the PHB Lite (derived from the pregenerated characters and rogue preview) to make some powers, the 1st level for classes, and odd things here-and-there. As ENworld is already doing odd bits of 4e homebrew based on previews, we might as well provide a place for it to go now, rather than later. --Sam Kay 10:37, 18 April 2008 (MDT)
Please see below. --Green Dragon 00:17, 5 May 2008 (MDT)

[edit] Should we make CAPTCHA's present after an IP edits?

Recently a high level of automated spam has been attacking D&D Wiki in the form of inserting nonsense and gibberish into random pages. An example would be DnD Flaws as of 04:08, 1 November 2007 (MDT) as edited by 200.226.134.53 (permanent link here). I think the easiest way to stop this problem would be to provide CAPTCHA's every time an IP makes an edit. The only reason I am asking this is because I am not sure if it would be more beneficial or more harmful to have CAPTCHA's. Do you guys think that IP's would still correct spelling errors if they had to enter a CAPTCHA or would they deem it to difficult? Would it, even if the amount of edits performed by IP's decreased, be worth it? Any ideas would be appreciated. --Green Dragon 13:41, 1 November 2007 (MDT)

Well, if they were just doing it because they were bored then having to spell the correct word to finalize the edit might prevent some people because they are just waaay to lazy. It would also prevent if anyone wanted to create a bot to spam content. Although, it would be annoying for me to have to do that every time I wanted to say, update my User Page with another new item. If you could disable it for users and not IP's, I think that would be a good try to cut down on the spam. --Watsyurname529 14:31, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
The CAPTCHA's would only be for IP edits, not for when a user edits something. Anyway, that would be terrible if a user had to enter a CAPTCHA to edit something (the reason they would not have to is because to create an account one has to enter a CAPTCHA...) Also, as you may have noticed, all the recent spam attackes have been automated, so hopefully if this is implemented it should help with the problem... --Green Dragon 14:44, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
So yea, try it and we'll see if the spam goes down. --Watsyurname529 15:24, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
I agree with this completely. Should I go ahead and put them in, or should we wait for more users to comment? — Blue Dragon (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
Go for it :). --Green Dragon 15:41, 1 November 2007 (MDT)
Yeah. --Sam Kay 11:52, 2 November 2007 (MDT)
Okay, it has been added. — Blue Dragon (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2007 (MDT)
For some odd reason, i have had a captcha come up after all my edits today, despite the fact the captcha is only supposed to come up when an IP edits something (and I am logged in). Why is this, and can someone sort it please? Thanks. --Sam Kay 05:03, 3 November 2007 (MDT)
This should not be happening. I would recommend doing the following: log out, clear your browser cache, clear your browser history, clear all cookies relating to D&D Wiki, restart your browser, and then log back in and see if it is still giving you troubles. If it is, then I will definitely look into this problem further. I am sorry for the inconvenience that this is causing you, and will try to get it sorted out as soon as is possible. — Blue Dragon (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2007 (MDT)
It has not worked. --Sam Kay 15:39, 3 November 2007 (MDT)
Maybe you're an IP in disguise... :P. --Green Dragon 16:17, 4 November 2007 (MST)
Err... no. --Sam Kay 11:55, 5 November 2007 (MST)
Okay... Can I change your password (through the database) and login as you to asses the problem? I would like to see what is happening and hopefully give Blue Dragon enough information to fix this very strange problem. Would this be okay with you? --Green Dragon 22:41, 5 November 2007 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Yeah, sure. Can you change my password back afterwards though, please? Thanks. --Sam Kay 08:11, 6 November 2007 (MST)
Am I the only one getting the problem? --Sam Kay 08:23, 6 November 2007 (MST)
No, I also experienced this today with my edits. Although, I'm behind a corporate firewall here, so I don't know if that has anything to do with it. --Skwyd 09:25, 6 November 2007 (MST)
No, I've gotten one after every edit I've made, even if it was just adding one letter. --Watsyurname529 14:15, 6 November 2007 (MST)
Oops... I guess the setting was set so sysops were the only ones who did not have to give a CAPTCHA whereas everyone else did. The issue should now be fixed, and sorry about that... --Green Dragon 20:22, 6 November 2007 (MST)
Much better. :D Now I can reformate the equipment section in peace. Which as an update I've finished nearly all the back to footers and have all but the magic weapons and over half the wondrous items updated to the MIC format. --Watsyurname529 20:42, 6 November 2007 (MST)
Yeah, sorted. --Sam Kay 11:59, 7 November 2007 (MST)
Glad to hear it :). --Green Dragon 20:44, 7 November 2007 (MST)

[edit] Move towards new DPL

Hello all, this site is running on a very outdated version of DPL, which has caused several hacks to have to be thrown together, and is potentially not allowing things to get done. When I upgraded this wiki to v11, I upgraded DPL as well, but most all pages that used DPL immediately stopped working. Is there an interest for me to get a test wiki running, and people can figure out how the DPL should be working, and then implement it? Or should we instead stick with what we have and wait until we really need the next version? — Blue Dragon (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2007 (MST)

I honestly have no idea what the DPL is. So could someone tell me what it is and/or what it does? Then I could answer your questions. --Watsyurname529 15:27, 7 November 2007 (MST)
What are the new features of the new DPL version? For most purposes, the DPLs seem to be working well, but I know we've especially had to hack some DPL2 stuff. Would the new version fix this? [Watsyurname529, DPLs are dynamically assembled lists generally based off of category tags, e.g. this code yields this page.] –EldritchNumen 18:21, 7 November 2007 (MST)
I feel that we should implement the new dpl version. The DPL2 (at least according to Sledged) would make it so we would not need three main different modifications of the dpl to be running on this site, the dpl, dplc, and the dpl2c (full list here). I think it would help D&D Wiki greatly to implement the newest version of the dpl, and make things easier for a new user to understand. --Green Dragon 20:48, 7 November 2007 (MST)
There's a demo site for DPL with a manual here.
Is there a way to get a list of all the pages using dpl*? —Sledged (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2007 (MST)
MediaWiki:Pages using DPL is what True Orphans uses. — Blue Dragon (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (MST)
It's only listing the pages in the main/default namespace. What about the SRD pages? —Sledged (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (MST)
The extension that page is for specifically excludes all SRD dpl pages, so those have never been added to that dpl list. We will have to compile a list on our own for SRD pages. --Green Dragon 19:54, 14 November 2007 (MST)
I see. Also, when I said "pages using dpl*," I meant also the dpl2c, dplc, and dpl2cu tags. I don't see any of the pages using those tags listed. If those pages can be identified before hand, it'll make an upgrade a bit easier. —Sledged (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (MST)
To answer EldritchNumen's first question. This wiki is running version 0.7.7 of DPL2. The latest version is 1.5.2, so there is a significant number of changes. For brevity, I'll just list a few of the new features that apply to this wiki:
  • You can specify your own format for the output. For example you could list each result as a row in a table instead of getting the standard three column output.
  • In conjunction with the previous feature, DPL2 pull content from the listed pages for displaying as part of the output.
  • You can get results based on pages names and page content in addition to categories and namespaces. For instance, all the user PrCs are assigned to the category beginning with the first letter of the page title. Those categories can be completely removed because DPL2 lets you return pages whose title's first letter matches one specified in the DPL2 call.
  • DPL2 can used to compensate for user error. Broken links like the one titled "Anima and Animus Mage" on the user PrCs page can be eliminated.
  • With the latest version of DPL2 (an one other specific extension) users can create spell/feat/monster/etc filters like the one seen here.
  • It can be used as a parser function (which I personally prefer over tags).
  • Pages that are linked to only from DPL calls are not listed as orphaned pages.
—Sledged (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (MST)
Okay, lets do it. What are the changes that need to be made to dpl pages to make this not be broken when implemented? What is the best way of going about this change? Should we change the pages first, then implement it, or implement it then fix all the errors on the dpl pages? --Green Dragon 19:54, 14 November 2007 (MST)
There's one more complication to take into consideration; All the pages with the dpl* mod tags (dpl2c, dplc, and dpl2cu) have to be changed, not just list pages. So we'll have to go through all the class pages (base, prestige, npc, and racial paragon) and NPC pages. I think Blue's suggestion of a test wiki is the best way to do it. —Sledged (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (MST)
It might not be necessary to set up a test wiki. I submitted a request over at the DPL2 site to transition all the globals to class members. If Gero decides to adopt it, the latest version and the currently installed version can be installed side-by-side without one conflicting with the other. The only caveat is that the line that reads 
$wgParser->setHook( "DPL", array( __CLASS__, "dplTag" ) );
in the new version will have to be commented out. This will disable using new version as a tag extension, but it will still be available as a parser function call; {{#dpl:}}. —Sledged (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2007 (MST)
And DPL2 version 1.6.0 (no more globals) has been released. —Sledged (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2007 (MST)
Okay, I upgraded to the latest version. Let me know if there are any errors. — Blue Dragon (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (MST)

[edit] A Small Sample

So here's a sample list of the user base classes, which I've limited to the 'A's:

Homebrew Base Classes with Descriptions
Name Balance1 (out of 10) Type2 Description3
Abhorsen NR
Acolyte NR
Acrobat NR
Agent NR
Alchemist NR
Amazon Warcaster NR
Animal Leader NR
Anti-Paladin NR
Arcane Absorber NR
Arcane Fist NR
Arcane Pyrotechnician NR
Arcane Ranger NR
Arcane Warrior NR
Archer NR
Aristocrat NR
Assassin, Lord Dhazriel Variant NR
Assayant NR
Autoplate Pilot NR
Axefighter NR
Aztec Priest NR
Aztec Warrior NR
  1. Shows how balanced a certain Class is, the number is out of 10. The Balance rating is from the actual Class's page; it is not made on this page. More information here.
  2. A general category the Class fits into. e.g. Strong Spellcasting, Combat Focused, etc.
  3. A concise description of the Class-- should advertise the Class.

—Sledged (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (MST)

I like it :). --Green Dragon 21:27, 29 November 2007 (MST)
The Alchemist... I don't know if i would consider it a spell caster --Cerin616, Drew 15:58, 11 January 2008 (MST)
Better now? --Green Dragon 20:20, 11 January 2008 (MST)

[edit] 4,000th Item!

Whoo! I just posted the 4,000th homebrew item on this site! Amazing how much stuff we've got on here. Just want to say congrats to everyone who's posted/edited here. Also here is the 4,000th item: Fried Frying Pan --Watsyurname529 15:29, 7 November 2007 (MST)

If that number is correct.... :P. I think we may actually have more, they are just not categorized (that number is actually the number of items in Category:DnD). Although, I agree. Congratulations all! --Green Dragon 20:51, 7 November 2007 (MST)
Hey, it says 4000 Items on the main page and that's good enough for me :P to you too, lol. --Watsyurname529 20:56, 7 November 2007 (MST)
Meh... :). Also, if you want to make that number more accurate please take a look at the TrueOrphans (which may not be true—I think MediaWiki:Pages_using_DPL needs to be updated...). However, feel free to categorize those things and, overall, make things on D&D Wiki be linked to! --Green Dragon 21:14, 7 November 2007 (MST)

[edit] Sidebar Change

Dungeons and Dragons or Homebrew?

The side bar has an option called "Dungeons and Dragons" that takes you to the Homebrew section. This seems to me to be misleading and should be changed to "Homebrew." This is not that big of a deal, but it would be more consistant. --Mander 15:09, 18 November 2007 (MST)

Actually, there's more than just homebrew material there (though the vast majority of it is homebrew). It also contains OGC from source books like Unearthed Arcana, Relics and Rituals, Creature Collection, Monster Manual II, and such. —Sledged (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2007 (MST)
Currently on the Main Page we call that entire section "Homebrew Content" even though it has more than just that (as Sledged pointed out above). If we want to be nitpicky, that is also a problem. Anyway, the reason it is called "Dungeons and Dragons" on the sidebar is that the sidebar cannot have any real wiki-syntax. The ideal organization for that would be something like:
D&D
Homebrew (even though it's not all homebrew...)
SRD
D20M
Homebrew (even though it's not all homebrew...)
MSRD
However, that is not possible. Since that is not possible we try to do the best we can, and that is the current way. Actually, this post has given me an idea... Maybe another box, labeled "D&D" and one labeled "D20M" could exist, with the links in them... --Green Dragon 14:43, 25 November 2007 (MST)
I just changed it. What does everyone think? Better? Worse? --Green Dragon 14:45, 25 November 2007 (MST)
I dont mean to be picky. I also dont mean to make extra work for ya all. I just through out ideas when I have them. I like the change, but I also like the reasons given above for why it was the way it was. That is why I like wiki format. I hardly ever make changes, but I do add my ideas to disscution.--Mander 22:44, 29 November 2007 (MST)
I hesitate to bring it up, but I think it might be worth mentioning; The D&D section could be split up into "homebrew" and "published OGC" sections. —Sledged (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2007 (MST)
First off you were not a bother at all, Mander. The sidebar is very easy to change and it's always great to improve things. Anyway, I feel that as soon as we have enough published OGC material (we are reaching it though, if one counts NBoF as "published") then we should definitely spit "DnD" up into published OGC and Homebrew. However, right now I do not think we have enough... Maybe when all the UA material is posted we can give it a shot, but until then I do not think we have enough OGC content. Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 22:48, 4 December 2007 (MST)
So many acronyms, so few ranks in knowlege-acronyms...--Mander 01:30, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Age of the internet. Soon everything we be reduced to acronyms, IMHO. OGC, DnD, NBoF, and UA (which I really should finish transcribing). —Sledged (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (MST)
Actually, speaking of acronyms, it would be helpful to have a list of all the D&D acronyms in DnD Other (I am sure a list exists on the internet, it just needs to be copied over). Also, sorry about using all those acronyms above. --Green Dragon 16:31, 5 December 2007 (MST)

New question: Shouldn't the UA Transcript be linked in the sidebar? -- OptimizationFanatic 17:02, 16 January 2008 (MST)

It should. What should we call it, Unearthed Arcana, UA, Variant SRD, or what? Ideas? --Green Dragon 22:48, 16 January 2008 (MST)
Maybe UA: Variants? -- OptimizationFanatic 08:34, 17 January 2008 (MST)
Or "UA Variant Rules." Either one works for me. —Sledged (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2008 (MST)
I have added it. Does it look okay? --Green Dragon 13:45, 18 January 2008 (MST)
Looks great! -- OptimizationFanatic 17:01, 21 January 2008 (MST)

[edit] Maps?

Discussion moved to Talk:Dungeons and Dragons#New Section: Maps? It dealt with Homebrew specific material, not everything on the site --Green Dragon 22:52, 4 December 2007 (MST)

[edit] Tavern Schedule

Should a small Tavern Schedule be placed on the main page on the right side (floating)? — Blue Dragon (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2008 (MST)

I think this is a good idea to increase use of the tavern, but it would be best if days that already had events planned were highlighted, a different text color, the only days with links, etc. They need to stand out; otherwise, I have to click each day to even see if there is anything that day. It almost seems to me that a mini-program/extension is needed to code that to make it more useful... still, the calendar is a great idea. That is the best suggestion I have heard to increase usage of the tavern. –EldritchNumen 16:35, 15 January 2008 (MST)
The days that have events are blue. --Green Dragon 19:43, 15 January 2008 (MST)
Much better. I like it. –EldritchNumen 20:24, 15 January 2008 (MST)

[edit] New Logo

Submitted Logos:
Please submit your own logo!
Upload it!
From Maria C.
From Maria C.
From Xidoraven
From Xidoraven
Variation 1
Variation 1
Variation 2
Variation 2
Current logo
Current logo

[edit] Official Updates

Here is what will happen. A two week submission period will start now, after this time when more logos or variations have been submitted, a one week voting period will take place. So, right now, please upload all the variations of these logos or your own D&D Wiki logo and in two weeks time the D&D Wiki community will decide what the logo will become. --Green Dragon 12:57, 26 January 2008 (MST)

The voting for which logo should become D&D Wiki's logo will start February 9th. --Green Dragon 13:13, 29 January 2008 (MST)

[edit] Voting

New Logo — Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate votes)
Image:D&D logo-test1.png Image:D&D logo-test2.png Image:D&D logo-test3.png Image:D&D logo-test4.png Image:Logo.png
From Maria C. From Xidoraven Variation 1 Variation 2 Current logo
  1. Aarnott
  2. Dmilewski
  3. Blue Dragon
  4. Daniel Draco </