Talk:Main Page/Archive 2

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |

MediaWiki updated[edit]

I have recently upgraded this site to MW 1.10.0. As with all updates, this may cause problems. Please let me know if any arise. — Blue Dragon (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2007 (MDT)

Recent changed on 500 gives "Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 2 seconds exceeded in /home/dandwiki-com/public_html/w/includes/Linker.php on line 71". Also, all NPCs do not work (timeout). You should keep a log of the problems that arise with each update and fix them every update because this has been fixed many many times now. You could have just looked at old updates to see what had to be fixed then and do those before finishing the update. --Green Dragon 18:36, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
Okay, those have been fixed. You are correct -- I keep on forgetting that it is set to two by default. That might not need to be enabled anymore seeing that was code optimization for D&D Wiki on the old server. If you want, I can do a few test runs without it. — Blue Dragon (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
Is this the update that made diff pages change from the red text for changed content to the strikethroughs and underlines? Cause I kinda hate it, I dunno about you guys though... --Armond (talk/contribs) 14:45, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
It is. –EldritchNumen 16:57, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
Seeing that this update came from MediaWiki it would be a pain to hack it together so it goes red again... Also, even though it looks uglier, I think it is easier to use and becomes more useful. Personally, I have come to like it for it usefulness. --Green Dragon 00:43, 12 May 2007 (MDT)
De gustibus non est disputandum.Cúthalion (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2007 (MDT)
I have to ask how long it takes people to find the differences here. Took me quite a while. --Armond (talk/contribs) 17:55, 16 May 2007 (MDT)
Hello Armond. I understand your point, I really do—however, there is another factor which should be considered. Both me and Green Dragon are red-green colorblind, and so it was very difficult with the old system to view the changes. I do realize that some of the changes are incredibly difficult to view, such as the one that you pointed out, but overall I believe it makes it easier for all people. I would be willing to hack back the old version depending on what the community wants, however. If this is a large enough issue, it should be put to the vote. — Blue Dragon (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2007 (MDT)
In that case, I think it should stay as it is now. (I feel like an idiot, forgetting about colorblindness. Sorry...) However, I think it would be nicer if we had some sort of color distinguation - my mother tells me that her colorblind co-worker can see red-yellow just fine, so what if we kept the red-yellow and changed the green background to something else? I don't really know what to suggest (blue? purple? orange?), but I'm sure what works for our two top editors will be fine. --Armond (talk/contribs) 20:55, 16 May 2007 (MDT)
I wouldn't mind seeing both types of differentiation. The only thing I didn't like about the previous way was that you couldn't see changes in white space. —Sledged (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2007 (MDT)
The perfect solution (for all but Blue Dragon because he would most likely code it) would be to make a preference in "user-preferences" that would let one choose their style of diff's (color-coded or strikethroughs and lines). How does this idea sound? Would anyone use it? --Green Dragon 23:30, 16 May 2007 (MDT)
In my experience it's nice to have a perfect solution, but it's always worth having a couple backup solutions because you're not overly likely to get the perfect one. I do think that sounds like a good idea (I would certainly use it, and I can see how others would use it too), but I think a couple backup ideas should be considered just in case. --Armond (talk/contribs) 14:45, 17 May 2007 (MDT)
What do you mean by backup? Also, should it be an option for the user to choose the color choices for an edit diff (so, no static colors)? --Green Dragon 22:38, 17 May 2007 (MDT)
Well, suppose Blue Dragon can't code it, for whatever reason. What do we do from there? I'd like to have a plan. As for color choices, that could be helpful if it can be implemented. --Armond (talk/contribs) 15:22, 21 May 2007 (MDT)
I was thinking the colors could be chosen on a user-by-user basis in "My Preferences" (just type in the RGB or whatnot). What do you think about this idea? --Green Dragon 00:13, 1 June 2007 (MDT)
This sounds unnecessarily complex to me. Couldn't we just combine the two features -- new-style font features and old-style colors? That would seem to provide the best of both worlds, and I presume it would be far easier to implement than a whole new set of preferences. (I don't actually agree that preferences would be the perfect solution, as it's added complexity for the user.) –Cúthalion (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2007 (MDT)

New Stat Block[edit]

I've created a new stat block to replace the old. The new one loads faster, allows for deity stats, and has a new system for statting out spellcasting, manifesting, invocation-using, utterances, stances, mysteries, etc. Bellinor Fenjornic (DnD NPC) is my demo for the new stat block. —Sledged (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2007 (MDT)

How did you get it to load so much faster? That is hands down the most useful thing. --Green Dragon 19:36, 12 May 2007 (MDT)
Extensive research over at Meta-Wiki involving the parser functions and the null template. —Sledged (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2007 (MDT)

News[edit]

Does the new template look better than the old table? Also, are the colors bad or really bad and could someone please figure out some better colors? Finally, how should Template:News be organized? Oh, BTW, thanks to PvXwiki for the image and general idea (even though this one is not as well implemented with the inclusion). --Green Dragon 23:11, 17 May 2007 (MDT)

Scroll Image Thingy[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that scroll in the News area on the home page looks suspiciously like a Superior Dervish Rune found in the Guild Wars games. I could confirm this if necessary, but I'd like to know where the person who uploaded it got it. I'm still quite certain thats from Guild Wars, and if so, it's copyrighted. DancingZombies 19:22, 19 May 2007 (MDT)

GD mentions above that it's from PvXwiki. I believe that's one of the pictures that ArenaNet made for general use. I will check with Gcardinal of PvXwiki, who made the site and likely knows where the picture is from. --Armond (talk/contribs) 23:54, 19 May 2007 (MDT)
For reference: [1] [2] --Armond (talk/contribs) 23:57, 19 May 2007 (MDT)
Gcardinal is the site's founder and leader, by the way. --Armond (talk/contribs) 15:23, 21 May 2007 (MDT)
Good news - as per the second link there, we can keep the scroll. It's a darn nice scroll too :D --Armond (talk/contribs) 19:01, 22 May 2007 (MDT)
A couple things. First off, I think maybe it should be removed it is a possible copyright problem. I had no idea it was from Guild Wars (I have never played that game), however now that I know I do not think it would be the best idea to have it. For one it is not D&D related, for another it could lead to problems, and finally I personally do not think it looks as nice as the old class="d20" news table. So, what are the thoughts on this image? Should it stay or should it go? --Green Dragon 19:17, 22 May 2007 (MDT)
I don't think it's a copyright problem. We've used plenty of screenshots from the game, modified or otherwise, without any problems or complaints. If you'd like, I can ask Gaile Gray, their "talk to the community" person (I forget her actual title...) to take a peek and tell us for sure one way or another.
I am kind of fond of the brown headline thing, but I see what you mean about the loss of the "class" lines. Is there a way to re-integrate that, while keeping the headline, box, and so forth? --Armond (talk/contribs) 11:32, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
We will keep it if you ask Gaile Gray and post her reply on dndmedia:Image talk:Hp news.png. Also, what do you think about how News looks now? --Green Dragon 15:26, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
Ah, that's what I was referring to with the brown headline and the class lines. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Armond (talk/contribs) 09:40, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
So, it looks better now, right? Also, have you contacted Gaile Gray yet? --Green Dragon 10:13, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
Yes, it looks better. As for the image, I've left her a note, but she's not responded yet. (Not surprising, honestly, as she watches at least three fan sites and is the most popular person on all of them.) I'd say give her time, and if I don't get a response in a couple days, I'll move up in the chain of command. --Armond (talk/contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
That link above doesn't seem to work, Green Dragon, so I'll post her response below:
The best source of information concerning use of our intellectual property or any Guild Wars asset is contained within our Terms of Use. In that, we make it clear that Guild Wars sites using our art have certain implicit permissions, so that fansites are not required to ask permission each time they expand their pages. However, dndwiki is not a Guild Wars site. Therefore danddwiki must remove the image until such a time as they have written permission from ArenaNet to use the art. (Someone else cannot give that permission; permission must come from the owner of the IP and/or copyright.) Because the site in question is not a Guild Wars site, I would recommend that they use copyright-free art of some kind rather than using Guild Wars or other art specific to a certain property. --Gaile File:User gaile 2.png 23:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Shame... We could submit a request to ArenaNet, as she says, but in the meantime we have to take it down. I am, however, glad that DancingZombies pointed it out so we could get it cleared up. Thanks for that. --Armond (talk/contribs) 13:28, 27 May 2007 (MDT)
Are you folks able to access the image? I get:
Fatal error: Cannot redeclare dynamicpagelist() in /home/dandwiki-com/public_html/w/extensions/intersections/DynamicPageList2.php on line 568
(pinging Blue Dragon) –Cúthalion (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2007 (MDT)
The problem should be fixed, Cúthalion. Anyway, now that we have to change the image, which image do you think is a better choice, Bible scroll template.gif or Nuvola apps knewsticker.png? Or, even, does someone here have a better alternative? --Green Dragon 08:20, 30 May 2007 (MDT)
For some reason I seem to think that scrolls do better for news images than newspapers. ... --Armond (talk/contribs) 11:12, 30 May 2007 (MDT)
I think the scrolls are classier, but the newspaper is more intuitive. Which one I prefer depends on my mood. –Cúthalion (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2007 (MDT)
We will go with the scroll if the things on it do not mean anything religious. Okay, first off I am not religious and was not raised religious, so I have zero background on religious things. With that in mind please do not take this question as silly, or whatever. So, do the two little images on the Bible scroll template.gif mean anything religious? --Green Dragon 00:10, 1 June 2007 (MDT)
Well, I guess scroll it is. --Green Dragon 11:19, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

Image types[edit]

... Before I decide, though, does the wiki work better with some image types than others? I know there are a few wikis where I can't upload a few image types at all... --Armond (talk/contribs) 11:12, 30 May 2007 (MDT)

All kinds of images work on D&D Wiki. If a certain kind does not I am sure we can get Blue Dragon (or someone) to make it work here. Both the images from wikipedia will work here. --Green Dragon 17:00, 30 May 2007 (MDT)
I've had problems reading .svg files. So has Dmilewski. Both .gif and .png display fine in my experience, although I understand .gif is generally dispreferred these days in favor of .jpg or .png (or .svg). –Cúthalion (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2007 (MDT)
Okay, it works like this: Highest priority: .svg (these are vector based graphics). The problems that existed with them have been fixed. Second priority: .png. They are very high quality for logos and such. .jpg should only be for photos and non-vector based images. .gif is just low quality in general and should only be used for animated materials. I hope that this helps, — Blue Dragon (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2007 (MDT)

Vandal[edit]

When 204.113.90.117 got done vandalizing this site, he moved on to WikiRPS as 204.113.186.166, deleting content. Recommend you block that one, too. –Cúthalion (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2007 (MDT)

Done. —Sledged (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2007 (MDT)
*sigh* I remember vandals would insert some crude text or link instead of just deleting content. They were far more amusing then. —Sledged (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2007 (MDT)
You $#()*$%!*#@$%)! You can't keep living in the ()@$#)@#$*%)* past. –Cúthalion (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2007 (MDT)

Page Display Errors --oh my![edit]

It would seem there is a disturbance in The Force --or something to that effect. At any rate, quite a few pages in the Dungeons and Dragons and SRD sections of the wiki seem to be rather out of sorts. For example, 3.5e Optimized Character Builds, All 3.5e Races, and SRD:Races (to name a few) all display line after line of php errors rather than their contents (in both Firefox and IE at any rate). Normally I would assume it was just me, but this talk page leads me to think otherwise. Is this just a temporary error or is there something more sinister going on in the nuts n' bolts of the wiki at large? Just wanted to call attention to it; seems a fair bit of a nuisance to casual perusal. --Rakankou 22:43, 27 May 2007 (MDT)

I get the same errors, along with others (see #Scroll Image Thingy and User talk:Blue Dragon#*** WikiRPS is inaccessible ***. It may be coincidence, but we had a vandal attack a couple of days ago. –Cúthalion (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2007 (MDT)
I believe it is an error with the DPL2.php script by Blue Dragon. I have alerted him to this page; hopefully he knows what is going on. --Green Dragon 10:31, 28 May 2007 (MDT)
This was caused by an upgrade to DPL 1.2.0. I have just downgraded for now, and will look into why the problems were occuring later on a test wiki. Sorry for all of these issues, and I am sorry that all of the wikis that were running off of the same extension code base but I did not modify LocalSettings.php on were completely inaccessible. Again, I am sorry. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2007 (MDT)

Downtime[edit]

D&D Wiki experienced minor downtime today, which fixed the minor downtime last night. I have changed D&D Wiki from being hosted at 166.70.232.84 to 166.70.99.90, and this should work quite a bit better. Let me know if there are any issues. — Blue Dragon (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2007 (MDT)

[deleted spam][edit]

Hm... sounds like a good time to update CAPTCHA. — Blue Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2007 (MDT)
I hate spam. (Actually, I used to like the canned meat product when I was a kid, as long as it was fried until it was brown and crunchy. I probably wouldn't like it any more, though.)
Does CAPTCHA prevent anonymous posting? –Cúthalion (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2007 (MDT)

New Scroll Image[edit]

I believe that this new scroll image looks horrible. It is by far too compressed, and it seems to hurt my eyes. Any other opinions? — Blue Dragon (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

I used to agree. However now that you made it smaller... It looks weird still. --Green Dragon 12:47, 14 June 2007 (MDT)

Name The Tavern[edit]

Hello everyone,

To create a place for general chat and banter, please go to The Tavern and help naming the place! --Mkill 01:51, 20 June 2007 (MDT)

Getting a D&D game going.[edit]

I was wondering if anyone knew any good sites for getting a game together or finding games, or any good programs. We might also want to ask those sites if they want to become affiliated with us. I also wanted to see if any of you wanted to play. --DeadlyNightShade 13:41, 22 June 2007 (MDT)

I do not know of any, sorry... --Green Dragon 20:08, 30 July 2007 (MDT)
Start from here -- Flession 04:50, 17 August 2007 (MDT)

Templates[edit]

Stop hand.png

There are a lot of templates in use at D&D Wiki, most of them rather unpleasant to the eye. Open a page like SRD:Skill Focus (Feat). 4 lines of relevant text, 3 templates, 2 of them with the ugly stop hand image (see left). If you see the page for the first time, it's like a shock. What did I do wrong? What am I doing here? Compare to the same content on d20srd.org. Obviously, it's not necessary to decorate every page with boxes. I suggest we merge the 3 boxes that are currently found on every SRD page into one, remove the stop hand and give it a more pleasant colour scheme.

I have a similar issue with the "Balance" box. Look at a class page like Overlord (DnD Class). I have to scroll 1 1/2 pages before I see any text content, because there is a TOC, the author box, an image, and that superfluous Balance box. We should move that Balance box to the bottom of pages. If I look at a class, I don't want to see the balance rating first, I want to get a general image of what it's about. The balance box can be at the page footer. If you want to add the balance rating at the top of the page, use the space on the right next to the page title. --Mkill 21:22, 9 August 2007 (MDT)

Before I respond I would like to say that the Overlord (DnD Class) is not formatted right; the image is not correct, etc. If the image was correctly formatted the text would start almost right away. Please use examples of correctly formatted classes, thanks. As a side comment the images on that class are very very nice, kudos if you made em :). --Green Dragon 22:36, 9 August 2007 (MDT)
About the templates, I agree. We can merge them/make them better. Please post any ideas you have here, thanks. --Green Dragon 21:40, 10 August 2007 (MDT)
I did. Merge the templates, remove the picture, blank out the OGL Top template, change the colour. Now it's "the community's" turn. --Mkill 06:53, 12 August 2007 (MDT)
I kind of meant an example... Also, as a starter, I am looking at changing our Template:Admin Locked Page to wikirps:Template:Restricted's look. What do you think about this idea? Also, I feel that Template:Admin Locked Page is a bit of a silly name, and could be re-named... --Green Dragon 13:57, 12 August 2007 (MDT)
The admin locked template is okay as it blends in the color scheme, I'm more worried about the other two. What could work is use the admin locked template as basis, but a horizontal line in and add the "this page is under OGL / content from SRD" announcement there. Then all you need to do is change the footer template in all SRD pages. Well, I did plan overhaul the SRD so all pages contain a footer template, but I got stopped in the process. --Mkill 03:25, 13 August 2007 (MDT)
Do you mean something like this?
Stop hand.png This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.
or this?
Stop hand small.png This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.
To replace Template:OGL Top? --Green Dragon 16:09, 13 August 2007 (MDT)
Both are better (though I prefer the former). If you don't like the "stop" image, why not replace it with a D20? It sorta fits in better with the SRD than a stop sign. What do you think? To be honest, I am more interested in content than templates, but it is nice to have nice-looking pages... I would like to say that I like the "balance, author and contents first" formatting, so I am happy to keep it. --Sam Kay 07:52, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
Okay, how does this look? Better?
D20 logo 4.jpg This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.
Should the image be larger or is it okay like it is? --Green Dragon 12:13, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
Thats ok, though I prefer this one:
D20 logo 4.jpg This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.
Although either is just as good... --Sam Kay 12:18, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
I agree with Sam Kay. The thing I like about that version is that it is readable, it doesn't look like "you shouldn't be looking at this page", and it shows the affiliation with the SRD and OGL by using the d20 image. --Aarnott 12:23, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
Prettier. I like. --Dmilewski 12:39, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
Okay, which one should replace Template:OGL Top the smaller one or the larger one? Personally I like the smaller one so it will be less obtrusive... Ideas? --Green Dragon 13:40, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
I took the second one and reduced the amount of bold text. Looks good now. --Mkill 21:32, 14 August 2007 (MDT)
D20 logo 4.jpg This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.

→Reverted indentation to one colon

How about this... Instead of making a huge noticable template for the top we have something like
D20 logo 4.jpg
This material is published under the OGL.
→More
or
D20 logo 4.jpg
This material is published under the OGL.
→More
where "More" links to a "span id" in the page brought by Template:OGL Bottom? --Green Dragon 02:28, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
Yeah... those ones would look good at the end of each SRD page. In the end, it is up to you, Green Dragon. --Sam Kay 04:17, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
Wait, so you prefer those for bottom templates? I was thinking they could replace Template:OGL Top and then we could work on the bottom after we have decided the top... I am a fan of having the smaller of the last two choices replace Template:OGL Top. Ideas? --Green Dragon 10:38, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
Less space is always good. Pick the smaller one. --Aarnott 10:47, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
Do we really need a top AND a bottom template? Why not just have a top template? Dunno. If we really need a bottom and top template, why not have:
D20 logo 4.jpg This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.
SRD stuff, yada yada yada, ect...
D20 logo 4.jpg
This material is published under the OGL.
→More
Any good?--Sam Kay 10:51, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
I like the top to be small so you can get straight to the text. In fact, it might be preferable to do something like:
D20 logo 4.jpg
At the top, and on the bottom (Mkill's):
D20 logo 4.jpg This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page.
The top could link to the bottom part. That way there is little white space at the top, but it identifies the page as an SRD page. --Aarnott 10:55, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
Here is what I think may look good. Just having the D20 Systems Logo on the top at 40px (Aarnott's Idea) and then on the bottom having a slightly modified Mkills' idea that looks like
D20 logo 4.jpg This material is published under the Open Game License v1.0a. The GNU Free Documentation License does not apply to this page. →More Information
Where "More Information" would link to something that says what the current Template:OGL Bottom says. What do you guys think about this idea? --Green Dragon 18:42, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
I prefer a single, bottom box. I've always thought the top mark redundant. The focus on opening an article should always be the article itself. If you must put a d20 logo on the page, put it in the top-right. --Dmilewski 18:48, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
I absolutely agree with Dmilewski. The OGL_Top template should only place the D20 logo in the top right corner, and there should be one box at the bottom saying 1. this is SRD material 2. it is under OGL 3. this page is locked. --Mkill 07:18, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Agreed (though I guess it was really the point I was saying before). The D20 logo will help identify a page as an SRD page for a user, which I think is important. The bottom footer is unobtrusive and gives the required info. --Aarnott 08:18, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Yeah. --Sam Kay 08:20, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Looks like we have a community agreement. So the OGL_Top template would be changed to
[[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|left|45px]]
--Mkill 08:47, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
The top template has been changed, however to [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|right|45px]]. Now for the bottom template... ideas? --Green Dragon 10:46, 16 August 2007 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I do like the d20 logo looks, but I question whether or not it's appropriate. Not everything that uses the d20 System is under OGL. Given that there are a number of gamers that keep thinking anything that is OGC is part of the SRD (such as the UA, and the S&S products), I worry that using the d20 logo to identify OGLed material might be promoting the misconception. —Sledged (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Oh, I see what you mean. I completely forgot that non-SRD items also use that template... Arrg, this is becoming a lot harder that it first looked. Maybe we could change all non-SRD items that use that template to use a different one (or none at all?) and keep it on the SRD items? Or we could take the easy route and just change the template to something that works for everything..? --Green Dragon 11:32, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
I'd change the non-SRD stuff. Have them use a different template... Because they are different! --Aarnott 11:51, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
Or what we could do is just change Template:OGL Top to say something like "This material is published under the OGL. in the right hand corner of the screen. That would be the easy way to make this all work... --Green Dragon 14:20, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
It has been changed. --Green Dragon 11:25, 18 August 2007 (MDT)

Meta Pages[edit]

I say that we should move the link to the Meta Pages off the Main Page and onto the sidebar (under navigation). The reason I see this as a good idea is because the average user goes here for content, not for seeing the infrastructure of D&D Wiki. I find that the average user has no need for Meta Pages while a more consistant user will use it (and can find it on the sidebar). I also do not want the Main Page getting cluttered. --Green Dragon 12:04, 10 August 2007 (MDT)

I agree. I have only ever used it twice, and it is really only needed occaisionally. --Sam Kay 13:35, 10 August 2007 (MDT)
Done and done. --Green Dragon 14:09, 10 August 2007 (MDT)

4th edition[edit]

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):
D20 logo 4.jpg
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:
D20 logo 4.jpg 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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:
D20 logo 4.jpg 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)

New Edition Issues[edit]

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.

General architecture[edit]

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)

Namespaces[edit]

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)

Templates[edit]

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

Homebrew[edit]

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)

Site conversion[edit]

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)

Another 4e Option[edit]

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)

The 4e Movement[edit]

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)

Vote[edit]

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)

New Look[edit]

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 <DPL2C> category=DnD order=ascending </DPL2C> 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

Main Page after 4e comes out[edit]

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. (4245 items)
  • The System Reference Document
    Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki.
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)

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

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)

Move towards new DPL[edit]

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)

A Small Sample[edit]

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 (3.5e Class) NR
Acolyte of the Dragon (3.5e Class) NR
Adventurer (3.5e Class) NR
Agent (3.5e Class) NR
Aht Urhgan Blue Mage (3.5e Class) NR
Aikijitsu Sensei (3.5e Class) NR
Air Magus (3.5e Class) NR
Alacrite (3.5e Class) NR
Alchemical Gunslinger (3.5e Class) NR
Alchemist, Variant (3.5e Class) NR
Alchemist (3.5e Class) NR
Allomancer (3.5e Class) NR
Ancient (3.5e Class) NR
Andellion Warrior (3.5e Class) NR
Angelic Warrior (3.5e Class) NR
Animal Leader (3.5e Class) NR
Animal Summoner (3.5e Class) NR
Animal Trainer (3.5e Class) NR
Anime Girl (3.5e Class) NR
Animist (3.5e Class) NR
Animist Shrine Priest/Shrine Maiden (3.5e Class) NR
Animist Variant (3.5e Class) NR
Animorph (3.5e Class) NR
Anti-Paladin (3.5e Class) NR
Apostle (3.5e Class) NR
Arcanamach (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Battousai (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Card Master (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Deck Channeler (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Enforcer (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Fury Wizard (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Gunslinger (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Hawker (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Librarian (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Marksman (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Physician (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Pyrotechnician (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Ranger (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Ritualist (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Summoner (3.5e Class) NR
Arcane Sword (3.5e Class) NR
Archer, Adventuring (3.5e Class) NR
Archer, Noble (3.5e Class) NR
Archer (3.5e Class) NR
Archer of Infinite Blades (3.5e Class) NR
Archer of fire (3.5e Class) NR
Architect (3.5e Class) NR
Arma Wielder NR
Armsbearer (3.5e Class) NR
Artifact Forge (3.5e Class) NR
Artificer (3.5e Class) NR
Ashborn (3.5e Class) NR
Assassin, Nuki (3.5e Class) NR
Assassin, Tome (3.5e Class) NR
Assassin, Variant2 (3.5e Class) NR
Assassin (3.5e Class) NR
Atom Smasher (3.5e Class) NR
Aura Guardian (3.5e Class) NR
Aura Knight (3.5e Class) NR
Aura Paladin (3.5e Class) NR
Autoplate Pilot (3.5e Class) NR
Awakened (3.5e Class) NR
Aztec Priest (3.5e Class) NR
Aztec Warrior (3.5e Class) 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)

4,000th Item![edit]

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)

Sidebar Change[edit]

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 3.5e 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)

Maps?[edit]

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)

Tavern Schedule[edit]

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]

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

Official Updates[edit]

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)

Voting[edit]

New Logo — Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate votes)
D&D logo-test1.png D&D logo-test2.png D&D logo-test3.png D&D logo-test4.png Logo.png
From Maria C. From Xidoraven Variation 1 Variation 2 Current logo
  1. Aarnott
  2. Dmilewski
  3. Blue Dragon
  4. Daniel Draco
  5. Young DM
  6. Arohanui
  7. Othtim
  8. Mask man
  9. kreik
  10. EaTCarbS
  11. Lordsnarf
  1. Silver Dragon
  1. Hawk
  2. Pirate-Sorcerer
  3. Sam Kay
  4. Summerscythe
  5. Wackymynd
  6. Green Dragon
  7. EldritchNumen

Everyone agree that we have reached a consensus? --Green Dragon 23:16, 24 February 2008 (MST)

Looks like we have to me 11/1/6 Xidoraven has a pretty big lead. Hawk 23:40, 24 February 2008 (MST)
I believe that the vote looks pretty definitive. Please let me know if anyone ever gives you problems from Wizards.com or Hasbro, Inc. I am currently working with them in a professional capacity, so I will be able to speak for my work myself, and in direct communications to them. If they want my business, they will not harass this site for being loyal consumers and fans of a popular product line. Best of wishes to you all.
GD, if you have any more input on what we talked about before, please let me know by email. I am having a hard time getting back here to check on my pages right now. -- xido 08:03, 25 February 2008 (MST)
Changed. --Green Dragon 21:24, 26 February 2008 (MST)
Looks good, everyone. Thanks for the support, and let me know if you need any other design ideas, since you may feel the need in the future to reconsider color usage, etc. Are there any ideas for what would be placed in the background area, if not the current Player's Handbook image? -- xido 00:39, 11 March 2008 (MDT)

General Discussion on Submitted Logos[edit]

We have had two submissions for a new logo. One of them is from Xidoraven, and the other is from Maria C. Both of them are shown below, and we should decide to either keep the current logo or change to one of these. Please leave feedback. --Green Dragon 15:04, 23 January 2008 (MST)

I like the second one. —Sledged (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (MST)
I vote for Xidoraven's. I like colorful. --Dmilewski 15:06, 23 January 2008 (MST)
I wonder what the first would look like with a bit more color. —Sledged (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (MST)
I really like the dragon on the first logo, however I feel that the wording on that logo may be a little hard to read. So, I think it may look very nice if both the trial logos were merged into one. The "D&D Wiki" would be cut out of the first logo and the "D&D Wiki" text from xido's image would be pasted over it, albeit a little smaller. Does anyone think this idea has some merit? Is it worth exploring further? --Green Dragon 15:35, 23 January 2008 (MST)
Variation 2 is great! I give that my vote. --Aarnott 16:23, 23 January 2008 (MST)
On second thought... I like Variation 1. Arrrg... It is difficult because the logo seems too big with the dragon, yet too small at the same time. --Aarnott 16:24, 23 January 2008 (MST)
I like variation 2, except the logo should be moved a bit down and right so that the entire graphic is a bit more square (lest the words encroach on the dragon picture)... –EldritchNumen 06:06, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Variation 2 OR Xidoravens. Either way, it's really cool! A new logo for a new edition... --Sam Kay 06:46, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Variation 2 has me as well. Also, if anyone wants to compile their own variation or make their own logo please do! We need all the options we can get! --Green Dragon 17:56, 24 January 2008 (MST)
My wife votes Xidoravens :P. I'm actually really not sure. I like Variation 1, 2, and Xidoravens... Perhaps we should set up an official vote? --Aarnott 18:01, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Is there going to be an "official vote" (whatever that may mean)? Variation 2 is my preferences, and I agree that it would likely look even better with the dragon picked out in red and gold. Also, whichever one is chosen, is it kosher for me to slap the logo up places (such as my blog) linking back to the wiki, as a means of promotion? --Arohanui 01:03, 26 January 2008 (MST)
I've gotta agree, but with xido's colors, I wouldn't mind seeing the dragon colored as a half-gold dragon red dragon. —Sledged (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (MST)
First off I agree, if the dragon was given some color this entire logo could come out very sharp. Secondly, xido, tell me if I am wrong. You are basically saying that you would be okay to work with the dragon image if Maria C. has the same intentions you have of modifying D&D iconic images for a good cause. Since I cannot speak for Maria C. I will contact her and ask her to join this discussion to help discuss her logo and the final outcome of D&D Wiki's logo. --Green Dragon 00:19, 25 January 2008 (MST)
I agree with Blue Dragon. As for my vote for the logos, I like the two combinations, particularly the second one. -- OptimizationFanatic 09:37, 26 January 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I also have to say, I really like the dragon in the middle of Xido's logo. I think that using his for the top logo, and then Maria's for a softer logo, potentially on the main page, could be used. However, I feel that a voting period should exist. — Blue Dragon (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2008 (MST)
Definitely Version two and It shouldn't be changed a bit the black and white dragon behind the blazing dnd wiki looks awesome but as a second choice id go for Xidoraven's logo by itself
I like Xidoraven's original logo. Kimmuriel 18:39, 14 February 2008 (MST)
Xidoraven for prez! --Othtim
I would make a terrible president. I would prefer project coordinator, or community shaman, but not something as pop-culture as presidente.  ;) -- xido 07:18, 16 February 2008 (MST)

Okay, how do i put my name on variation 2, that my fav :D - Zombiecow

Authors Comments and Discussion[edit]

Font size is highly important in a logo concept, especially when they are sized down this much. I designed the font spacing and proportions with that in mind. Also, though I enjoy the integration of the two (trust me, my inner artist is inspired - not jealous), it seems a little busy, and the dragons look dim compared to the heavy vibrancy I put into the original 4e-based concept. I know it sounds haughty and rude, but I choose my own. If Miss Maria would be willing to revise her concept, I think they would more accurately meld. Her design would need the words removed fully, and would require a splash of color (like a layer over it, that appears like watercolor, or an expressive way of 'filling in the lines'). The logo I created has heavier contrast even than that of the original 4e logo design. I had not anticipated it being integrated with another black-and-white (or blank) portion. Had I known, I might have prepared an alternative. -- xido 21:30, 24 January 2008 (MST)

As a second thought: Here's my other dilemma.
I do not know Miss Maria, but I know that her artwork is based on Lockwood's, and that is a blatant copyright infringement of one of the most controversial materials produced by Wizards: Commissioned Artwork. ([3])
I am well aware of the fact I pulled a concept from 4e D&D corporate design, knowing full well that it might bring a lawsuit upon me. I am also communicating with the makers of Scrabulous (Scrabulous.com) currently, because I feel that what is happening right now with their product is an issue in international business ethics. I openly state that my work is a mere pseudo-forgery of Wizards own internally-produced corporate graphics, but I appreciate and respect Mr. Lockwood for being such a professional artist in his field, and cannot openly condone utilizing his work in our own endeavors. If the piece was just a tad different from the Red Dragon's stance or appearance, I could see over-looking it, but this is something that is necessary for an artist to understand up-front. I openly admit to pirating the official 4e logo design from Wizards for a good cause, but I would hope that Miss Maria would be able to do the same in her position.
That being said, the general concensus on what constitutes 'unique artwork' is at least 15% difference from the original piece. Though she has flipped the image on its vertical axis, and turned detailed painting into rough black outlines, I would think it would need just a tad more work done to it to be considered anything other than outright plagiarism. If Miss Maria is aware of my own intentions, and has the same goals of her own, then I can look the other way. I would prefer to go down alone if I am to go down as an artist. At least this way, no one can say that you paid me for my services, but that I instead gave them openly as a professional operating in the open-source markets under the GNU license.
That's my last piece. -- xido 22:09, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Hello, this is Maria. First of all, I am not Miss Maria as you have taken a fancy of calling me. Second, I created this wood engraving without the knowledge of what's copyrighted and what is not. Green Dragon is family friend and has been nagging me for months to create a logo understanding that I am a graphic design artist. He handed me d&d books and asked me to make a logo. So I choose something cool, changed it, carved it, printed it, modified it on the computer. Green Dragon did not give any advice for this, only that it needed to be done. I wasn't told of anything so I am sorry for the copyright infringement. I also created this logo not for a profit such, but for this 'community' which may be considered a good cause since I get not one thing out of it. And xudo, you need to work on being respectful. You seem jealous that someone else has submitted artwork and that you aren't the only one with fame. 'Artists' are so competitive and always trying to be the best with their noses in the air. -Maria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xuthukzaklath (talkcontribs) 15:16, 25 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts!
As a friendly site note to all, I vote that the attacks should stop. This should be a logo design competition in which the best logo is chosen. There is no need to either of the creators to bicker. — Blue Dragon (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2008 (MST)
I highly agree, BD.
I just wanted to make my comments publicly known. I have absolutely no problem with the mods of this site asking multiple artists for their ideas. I am glad that you have put forward as well. That is how professional art works. Everyone puts forward what they have to give, and then the leaders decide which works best for what they'd like to portray the project. In this case, there were two options, plus the idea of combining. I have not a single problem with any of those ideas, and in fact wish for the mods to make their own decision. As an artist, I may seem biased. In fact, my words (including the word 'blatant') may have had a negative ring or tone to them, but I assure you that my mental inflection did not.
I only want to make everyone aware that I have taken multiple considerations into effect in stealing elements of Hasbro's corporate logo in order to promote this open-source site's mission of helping the public. I have a SERIOUS issue with Hasbro & Mattel's current intellectual property campaign at the moment, as well as their business ethics toward third-party producers of copyrighted content. This is because of the legal drama happening with Scrabulous.com. It is for this reason that I am openly providing my professional services to the mods of this site, in order to help them, just as you, Maria, have done. I respect your position and comments. Please just know that I wanted my input to be put out there, in case you were not aware of the legal implications of that particularly recognizable image (the red dragon literally is the most reproduced dragon in D&D as of this year, in terms of rulebook, supplemental, and related material to the D&D brand line. To utilize this image would be a very risky and potentially harmful venture. That is my only point here. If you are okay with that risk, I am okay with it. But please note that the reasons for THAT piracy is not in any way the same as the professional stance I am making by utilizing corporate branding material from Hasbro, as opposed to the very highly recognizable works of Mr. Lockwood, whom I revere admirably as an artist.
On a sidenote, I assumed that being a Maria, that you are a female. I could be wrong here. In the state of Louisiana, where I have recently moved to, it is customary for men in particular to respectfully call a woman of any form (whether married, divorced, single, or otherwise) 'Miss Whoever'. I was merely trying to be courteous. I hope I have not offended. That was not my intent.
Thanks for understanding, all, and I hope that the Mods can make an adequate decision on the logo design. I would not like to seem biased, so I will leave it all up to you, having said my piece. Best wishes, -- 70.172.234.38 19:59, 10 February 2008 (MST)
PS - I don't want to seem pushy, but I have always had a hard time voting on this site. Perhaps making a username profile on Elftown.com, and seeing the way their own polls are set up might give you ideas for future changes. Privacy features, public features, wiki-features, and a pseudo-html are all able to be used there. I have had some really good success with hosting polls on Elftown to get input or for contests of any multiple-choice form. -- 70.172.234.38 19:59, 10 February 2008 (MST)

Legality of Images[edit]

As to the copyright issues, I believe that the background of our skin is a WoTC copyrighted image. I feel that if we receive a cease and desist letter they will be removed, but beyond that, I feel that it should not be a major issue. Also, I have another interesting idea. I think that Xidoraven's is powerful, and in that sense alone looks quite nice. Would there be any major consideration to have the background of the main page be this dragon, or something similar? A watermark, so to speak? The second combination could also potentially be modified by Xidoraven, seeing that he would know what to do for D&D Wiki's purposes. — Blue Dragon (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2008 (MST)

Actually, both the skin and the logos would be covered under the free use clause of international copyright law, as it is neither being used to make money nor infringes the copyright holder's ability to sell goods. --Sam Kay 10:53, 26 January 2008 (MST)
Sam, I just want to say a quick word about free use (I know you like it, so I won't be too harsh). Essentially, the clause is the "wiggle room" in an otherwise extremely strict copyright law and allows for things like academic criticism, etc. However, exactly what constitues "fair use" and what constitutes "unfair use" is loosely defined in the law, and it is important that you know that the United States judicial system has historically ruled very strictly against those parties who (in their eyes) abuse the clause. So, we should tread a bit softly. However, as was said above, if we (Green Dragon, actually) is issued a cease and desist order from any company (such as those owning HALO and LotR, for example, or especially from Hasbro) then we will have to delete the content. Basically, I just want it to be noted that fair use is limited, especially within the widely respected bounds of legal precedent, so don't be too sure that certain images, etc. can be freely used under "fair use." Further, the likelyhood of abuse increases as more information is added. Thus, if I were to quote a line from the PHB as evidence in an argument, that would certainly pass litmus. The more direct and derivative information that is added, though, the more likely it is that infringement will ensue. (Please also note that all material and information derived from a copyrighted source is also [partially] owned by that source, which includes information and rules we might create for use in, for example, the HALO setting). A final note: Wizards of the Coast is renowned for its aggressive pursual in copyright infringement cases after inherited issues involving TSR, Palladium, and certain other companies, a historical precedent that everyone here should be aware of. In any case, please keep in mind that so long as there are no legal actions served we should be okay (this site is not for profit thus far, though if we begin to earn revenue from advertising this will importantly change), but—if the issue comes to a head— we will most definitely be on the losing side and will have to remove content or face court action. –EldritchNumen 09:22, 29 January 2008 (MST)
I was aware of that. I had to do quite abit of research into it when I did LotR. I do think, however, that as there are Wikias for both LotR and Halo, neither of which have yet been sued, the CSs in question should be fine. Although the dragon thing is a definatly something we should think over carefully. Although, as we are only considering a logo, the risk is small (I think). So, yes, those things are fine for now and we can remove them if we get into trouble. The biggest problem with free use is definatly it's vagueness. --Sam Kay 10:05, 29 January 2008 (MST)

Protection of Pages[edit]

You know this isnt much of a wiki since everything is editblocked.if someone vandalizes a page u REVERT it Zau 03:12, 29 January 2008 (MST)

? Of course we revert it! Why should we let our work be spoiled by vandal? All wiki's revert vandallism. The point of a wiki is to work together to improve the whole thing, rather than to reck the whole thing by vandalism. And about those editblocked pages- those are mostly SRD, which is official material that we aren't allowed to whimsically edit. --Sam Kay 06:49, 29 January 2008 (MST)
I have unlocked this page to IP edits, we will see what happens. Also, the SRD's protection is up in the air right now, if all goes well with the new UA material on D&D Wiki (which, even though it is OGC, is only protected from IP edits) then the SRD may very well become protected only from IP edits as well. If you are referring to specific GNU FLD homebrew pages that are protected, they are only protected because the author of the page is question has asked them to be protected. They will never become un-protected unless the author wishes this to happen. I hope this helps answer your question as to why so many pages on D&D Wiki are protected. --Green Dragon 13:03, 29 January 2008 (MST)

Index of True Dragons[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:True Dragon Index#Location? as it dealt with that page. --Green Dragon 09:25, 8 February 2008 (MST)

Published Settings[edit]

Hi I was wondering does anyone know whether it would be legal to publish information about old dnd settings on here or homebrew stuff for those settings ie: planescape or spelljammer? also would it be legal to do the same for the still in print settings like forgotten realms and eberron? and would anyone else be interested in stuff like this? Hawk 22:42, 7 February 2008 (MST)

New settings = no. Not allowed, as they aren't under the OGL (I think...). Old ones I'm not sure about. -- OptimizationFanatic 22:28, 8 February 2008 (MST)
Probably not. The old stuff isn't under the OGL. --Sam Kay 13:03, 10 February 2008 (MST)
If it is licensed under the OGL please add them, however I do not think any of them are... --Green Dragon 23:43, 10 February 2008 (MST)
I'm pretty sure It is technically not allowed unless we want to make fun of them in which case it falls under fair use in the copyright acts of the world lol. Does anyone know how we could find out for sure? Hawk 06:42, 11 February 2008 (MST)
They cannot be added. --Green Dragon 12:08, 11 February 2008 (MST)

Semantic MediaWiki[edit]

I do not pretend to understand this nor what it would take to implement but would it be possible to use something like [4] to create forms to make adding entries for new users easier. there are a number of entries that need to be formatted if a form formatted the entries for them this problem may be fixed. Although it would only help at page creation its a start. Any thoughts?

I should point out the form wouldn't replace editing the code directly just allow another option for those who have no idea how to format. Which means those who like to stare down the face of a page of code (myself included) could still do so. Hawk 02:25, 10 February 2008 (MST)

I've briefly grazed over that extension, and I've yet to take it for a test run, but I think you're right that there may be some useful nuggets along with the semantic forms extension (which requires semantic wiki). I'd been meaning to ask Aarnott or Blue Dragon to take it for a spin in development environments and give input on it. —Sledged (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (MST)
I think it would be useful only problem is that it needs to be added to dnd wiki then someone has to make the forms, it's a fair amount of work. Hawk 21:29, 10 February 2008 (MST)
About. Not sure if this is really what we are looking for... It, as far as I can tell, would just help with dynamic categories and act a little like the dpl2c feature we currently use. I think an external script for adding things (as Aarnott is working on) may be a better option. --Green Dragon 23:10, 10 February 2008 (MST)
My apologies I was unclear on what I meant I'm lucky Sledged knew what I meant. Its not the semantic wiki itself that I am interested in but the Semantic forms extension. As far as I understand it it allows you to 'simply' create a form to fill out and will take care of the wiki coding for you. If you scroll down to the Special Pages heading and look at the examples it will give you a better idea of what this is. Hawk 23:24, 10 February 2008 (MST)
I agree with you, that is a very interesting extension, and I could see it being very useful here on D&D Wiki. The only problem I see is that, although impressive, it requires a Semantic Wiki as a prerequisite. I am not sure I would want D&D Wiki to become a Semantic Wiki, although the decision is not mine it is the communities. Maybe someone could change the code so a Semantic Wiki is not needed and it can work within the normal MediaWiki environment? That would make it quite a bit more appealing :). --Green Dragon 00:59, 11 February 2008 (MST)
I have not read all the material and probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway I believe it would be beyond my ken, my knowledge of wikis and php is limited. What would be involved in implementing this do you think? What would 'becoming a semantic wiki' do? You seem to have reservations I'm just wondering if there are draw backs you foresee? Hawk 06:25, 11 February 2008 (MST)
I gave a look at Semantic Wiki and I think it is a great idea. In my experience as a technical writer, duplication of information is one of the Prime Evils. Namely, here was the criteria that led me to really want to add dpl to races and now feats:
  • All information about a particular topic should be in the same location.
  • Updating information should update other pages that use that information.
Where I work, we use a form of documentation source files called DocBook. DocBook is much like this wiki where information must be repeated because there is no inclusion mechanism. There is another form of documentation source, which we are considering switching to after the next release of our software. This format is called Dita. Dita allows you to segment information into sections which can be included directly by other pages. This concept is partially similar to Semantic Wiki, but I would argue, less powerful. Semantic Wiki allows you to tag information as a particular type of information. It might be a little more work to create a page, but all of the sudden we have so much more power to categorize our information.
On a race page, for example, we can have a "quick synopsis" type of data which users would use for a sentence that describes the race. The page could also have an "ability score adjustment" type of data and a "level adjustment" type of data. All of the x0 templates I put on the top of race pages would be unnecessary at this point. The advantage being: if a user updates the source of the race (ie: changes the Ability score adjustments from +2 str to +2 con), it will automatically change the race table without requiring the x0 template at the top of the page to be changed. This means that the information displayed in the tables will always be true to the source.
The big problem with Semantic Wiki is that it would be a LOT of work from the startup. Probably a few months of work if we want to fully integrate it. So no matter how great I think the idea is, it is probably not a feasible or worthwhile one to integrate.
Now Hawk, you seem to be interested in the same thing that I am (and in fact something I have been working on). You want some sort of form based generator that will automatically format the pages after you supply some information. I have almost finished an NPC Generator, which should be promising. I just need to add in spellcasting, epic spellcasting, and special abilities. Forms can always be done directly in php and linked to. --Aarnott 07:14, 11 February 2008 (MST)
This forms extension allows you to not only create a page but edit it using the forms as far as I can tell. I do not know if your PHP pages can do that but if they do it creates a slight issue on the off chance that someone is editing the page on the wiki and on the form the wiki edit would be wiped over when you save the form as it is working directly with the database (I assume). Where as using this forms extension your still working within the wiki and it will prompt you like normal that there is a conflict (yet again I assume) and the situation can be remedied. I do not know exactly what semantic wiki does but the benefits of the forms extension as I understand them are:
  • Creation and editing of pages through forms
  • Users can create their own forms 'easily'
  • Those new to wiki's can use these forms and the page will be automatically wikified which means very little formating will be required afterwards.
  • The fact your filling in a form rather than code means that it's less daunting for the new user and they are more likly to contribute.
  • Organization of Dnd Wiki can easily be improved as categories can be added automatically to entries by use of the forms.
Hawk 08:01, 11 February 2008 (MST)
What I have been working is only for initial creation, though at some point I would like to have an "import feature". If we had it all form based, however, people would not learn wiki syntax, which is a powerful syntax in its own right. Is that a bad thing? I'm really not sure. Templates can also automatically add categories though.
I still don't understand exactly how a wiki works on the back end, and I am actually going to toy with Media Wiki and Semantic Wiki (with the forms extension) tonight. I will see if I can integrate an application with the wiki directly, while still preserving the wiki ways (as an edit not an overwrite). I will also see how easy it is to create a semantic wiki form. Not that my input is even close to the be-all and end-all of this discussion, but I would like to share what I learn with the community. I hope that Semantic Wiki is very easy to use and the forms feature is as well. Good call making note of it! --Aarnott 10:28, 11 February 2008 (MST)
Personally I love coding I'm a nerd I admit it lol, but what it keeps coming down to for me is not everyone does and allowing those people to add and edit their creations on here would be awesome. And the forms extension seems to be the quickest, easiest and most effective way of doing that. Let me know how you go with the testing it will be interesting to see if it performs as well as I am hoping. Hawk 10:36, 11 February 2008 (MST)
Did you end up trying this out Aarnott? Hawk 21:09, 21 February 2008 (MST)
Short answer: yes. Long answer: I think I messed up on the install because I'm getting some strange errors thrown during runtime (like when I access the localhost server). I'm going to uninstall everything today and retry it (no work or school today -- yay!). Third time is a charm :). --Aarnott 08:37, 22 February 2008 (MST)
So it ended up being an easy thing to install and I was just being dumb :P. I have got a few form examples working and I think it is a really sweet extension, but there is a major problem that really limits the Semantic Form usage. The form must be used to fill a template (at least from my knowledge using their built-in form generator). This poses a problem if we wanted to have users fill in a race page for example. They could only fill out the author template and x0 template (or Race template if we replace that), but the point stands that there are limitations. Semantic Wiki on its own though looks like a really great extension and the forms extension would be good to use at least for some pages. All the work I have done with races, for example, can be made a lot better by tagging particular parts of an article. If we can get the form extension working in the ideal way, then new users will never create a poorly formatted page. I say go for the installs. They definitely don't hurt and in fact I will start a project to tag all the races so we can get rid of templates to store information. --Aarnott 11:30, 22 February 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Okay, we can give it a go. I will have Blue Dragon install it when he answers me back. Also, I am a little confused as to what you are saying above. Can we or can we not get rid of the Template:x0 on the races' pages with this extension? I thought this made it so one can "tag" certain parts of an article and have those "tags" show up on a different page as well (like a split Template:x0 (just like Deities is currently organized)). --Green Dragon 11:38, 22 February 2008 (MST)
We can get rid of any templates we use that duplicate information already in the article (such as x0). What happens is we create properties which are used to identify information. So in the case of a Race, we would have a property called "Ability Score Adjustments" or something like that and tag the section directly in the article that refers to the ability score adjustments. Instead of using dpl to grab template information, we use semantic wiki to grab the "Ability Score Adjustment" directly from the page. The main advantage in my opinion is that when you update a page, you only have to change information once and then the tables update. It will be some work though (thus why it would become a project for me), but Semantic Wiki does not change existing wiki functionality, which is a very good thing. --Aarnott 11:45, 22 February 2008 (MST)
I installed WAMP (appache server + php + mysql latest stable versions) on my vista ultimate machine last night and then installed media wiki semantic and the forms extension I had no trouble it installed perfectly (apart from me stupidly trying to instal semantic forms with a mysql user that didn't have permission to create tables). I have been fiddling around a little havnt had much time though. Here's what i've figured out:
  1. You create properties like string, page or date first
  2. Then create templates (using the template making tool that comes with the forms) I made a author template and a very quick deity template.
  3. then you make a form. You pick Author click add. then you click deity and click add (you can create forms which use more than one template!)
  4. name the form then save
  5. when you go to the form it will ask for a page name type one in like "MyDeity (DnD Deity)" hit enter
  6. you are then taken to the form you fill it out it makes the page as per the templates it works as described !!! :O
  7. you can even edit the page again using the form !!!
Hawk 19:11, 22 February 2008 (MST)
There is one thing though semantic wiki adds a box at the bottom of the page "Facts about..." if it can be removed i'd be happier. Hawk 19:16, 22 February 2008 (MST)
I just realized it would be relatively easy to turn our current preloads into templates add a few bits of code you have a compatible template to make a form for and if you edit the template EVERY SINGLE CREATURE, DEITY OR CLASS (that uses that template) IS EDITED AS WELL!!! meaning we decide we want the classes to look like (insert format here) we can instantly change them all at once!!! Hawk 19:36, 22 February 2008 (MST)
The problem lies in the fact that we will have to change every single homebrew page. I'm up for the challenge (as long as it takes), but help will be nice if you are willing :). It does seem pretty nifty though. --Aarnott 20:20, 22 February 2008 (MST)
I do not want this extension if the "Facts about" (or whatever it is called) is present. Is there a way to remove it? --Green Dragon 22:07, 22 February 2008 (MST)
I am more than happy to help. What we need is to create the forms and templates so that all new entries use them. then start changing things over slowly, On the plus side if it takes awhile to convert the old stuff its not so bad as they will look exactly as they do now until we get to them. Perhaps we should consider moving this discussion onto it's own page before this page gets so large it destroys the Internet. I would also suggest holding off on installing it until we've fiddled some more to see what effect it has on the wiki like the damn facts about table. Hawk 22:10, 22 February 2008 (MST)
I should point out the facts about table is only present on pages that use semantic data so if we did instal it it wouldnt effect anything until we started to make pages with semantic data on them. Hawk 22:14, 22 February 2008 (MST)
This is an image of an author table I created useing a form [5]
Notice it looks exactly the same as our current author table. Below is the form:
[6] [7]
Notice on the form the date field it is contextual so all dates on author pages will have the same format so yet more consistency Hawk 23:03, 22 February 2008 (MST)
First off, what is that operating system your using... please don't say Vista ;); Ubuntu überalles. Anyway, again, is there anyway to remove the "facts about" box? If that can be removed this will be installed right away. --Green Dragon 21:47, 24 February 2008 (MST)
I'm afraid so I use (and like) Windows Vista Ultimate Version 6.0.6000 Build 6000. Ok I have figured out how to get rid of the factbox (that's its official name) you need to edit "SMW_Settings.php" in the folder "[wiki folder]\extensions\SemanticMediaWiki\includes". this line "$smwgShowFactbox = SMW_FACTBOX_NONEMPTY;" needs to be changed to "$smwgShowFactbox = SMW_FACTBOX_HIDDEN;" and this line "$smwgShowFactboxEdit = SMW_FACTBOX_NONEMPTY;" needs to be changed to "$smwgShowFactboxEdit = SMW_FACTBOX_HIDDEN;". Pages that were created with semantic data on them before you change these lines seem to keep the factbox for some reason on my machine so those settings should be changed as soon as the extension is installed. Hawk 23:35, 24 February 2008 (MST)
I've put my project of wikifying entries on hold until we figure all this out because if we decide to edit the old entries so they use the forms templates I'll be doubling up on work. If we make semantic templates out of the preloads the articles made with forms will look like our current entries but if we want the old entries to get layout updates automatically like the new entries will be able to we will have to change all the old entries. As Aarnott says it will be a mammoth task but in the end I think the benefits are worth it. --Hawk 23:45, 26 February 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Is there an ETA for Blue Dragon to put this on the server? I'm eager to work on using the Semantic features! --Aarnott 12:36, 27 February 2008 (MST)
It should be done now! :)Blue Dragon (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (MST)
I say lets start with LA 8 Races. --Green Dragon 23:22, 28 February 2008 (MST)
Okay, so Form:DnD Equipment was created, however the category issue and the identifier issue still needs to be solved. Any ideas on how to fix these problems? Also, I feel this would be a lot easier if two edit boxes worked on a form, however it seems they do not. Any ideas on how to circumvent this, or can two of them work on a form somehow? --Green Dragon 01:16, 29 February 2008 (MST)
Sorry GD but I don't have a clue what your asking. --Hawk 05:39, 29 February 2008 (MST)
Form:DnD Equipment now includes categories, I do not know all the categories for subtype ie: outfits armor etc and the way i've written it you can only have one type category and one subtype category if someone wants to find a way around that be my guest and could someone who knows all the categories add a list to Property:Item Subtype for me the list should be written like Property:Item Type. I made some properties for the author template so we could use the new semantic search functionality to search for say all pages with me as the author but the template wasn't working properly after I added them so I reverted the edit I'll try to get it to work later but if someone else wants to try be my guest. --Hawk 07:04, 29 February 2008 (MST)
P.S. Sorry about littering the recent changes pages with all those edits its hard to tell what an edit will do when your working on a template and form at the same time and changes to a form cant be seen through the preview button (because you only see the page title input box). also feel free to delete the page entitled test. --Hawk 07:09, 29 February 2008 (MST)
P.P.S. I have added code to Category:Equipment so that any page using that category will have a tab at the top "Edit with form" which will send you to the equipment form. This will allow novices to edit their page without having to edit code and will allow us to edit the old pages so they use the form now. --Hawk 07:34, 29 February 2008 (MST)
I have deleted the "Edit with Form" option — I want people to learn wiki syntax. Blue Dragon also implemented this, however I am not a fan. Deleted. --Green Dragon 10:55, 29 February 2008 (MST)
Are you sure you want to enforce that? The whole purpose of wiki-markup is so that users don't have to know HTML to created and edit pages. Semantic Forms takes it one step further by narrowing the amount of wiki-markup a user has to use. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to actively require users to learn the wiki syntax. —Sledged (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2008 (MST)
This "edit with form" thing might help improve the formatting of pages made by new or non-users. --Sam Kay 11:55, 29 February 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Damn you Sledged ;), you're very right. Okay, I guess we can have them... It's just that I do not want a generation of users not learning wiki syntax; that could be detrimental to D&D Wiki. However, what is the goal of D&D Wiki? It's to provide a place where users can submit homebrew content so it can be played in other D&D campaigns. Editing with forms will just help make the goal of posting things and fixing things on D&D Wiki easier. I guess we should have it. --Green Dragon 13:29, 29 February 2008 (MST)
For me it's more about letting people add and edit content easily without having to learn the entire wiki syntax in one hit. If they want their creations to look good they still have to learn syntax for stuff like equipment as there is no standard format for the item description etc so at current we just have an input box, but if they don't bother with syntax as a lot of creation i've wikified didn't then the form has done most of the wikifying for us. Does that mean I can put the edit with form tab back up? --Hawk 19:04, 29 February 2008 (MST)
I say go for it. --Green Dragon 22:26, 2 March 2008 (MST)

SMW and DPL[edit]

There's been a request for DPL to be able to access SMW properties. I'm keeping an eye out for when this gets implemented. —Sledged (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2008 (MST)

Once the semantic data is implemented it would be possible to replace the dpl generated tables with inline queries, if anyone is interested in doing that we would not need the DPL to be able to access SMW. I'm not sure how the DPL works exactly but SMW inline queries are done each time someone looks at a page so if the DPL doesn't do this using SMW inline queries may put more strin on the server for more information goto the SMW manual --Hawk 18:59, 29 February 2008 (MST)
I'll have to play around with it and see the level of flexibility compared to DPL. —Sledged (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (MST)
Had trouble using the queries on my test wiki but I suspect that may be because i'm not as smart as I like to think. --Hawk 06:10, 1 March 2008 (MST)
I made a query at LA 8 Races, but I am getting SRD Matches for some reason. I think it is using an implicit OR rather than an implicit AND for the category matches, even though the documentation claims it uses AND by default. I do know a way to fix the table, but it is not elegant because it will stop working if we add semantic syntax to the SRD. I'll keep looking for an answer... --Aarnott 07:30, 1 March 2008 (MST)

Featured Articles[edit]

Hi everyone time for major change to the wiki idea number two (number one being semantic forms). I guess it's not a major change so much as a new 'thing'. I was wondering what would everyone think about having a article featured on the main page say every month. We nominate articles for featuring, people would support or oppose the articles then first day of the month one could be chosen to be on the main page until the next month. The articles would be finished work, well formated etc etc. --Hawk 06:23, 3 March 2008 (MST)

We could also go that step further and have a Process closer to wikipedias where you nominate an article it becomes 'featured' but does not necessarily get added to the main page. each month or week or whatever someone decides which one gets put up / you can request a featured article be considered for the main page. --Hawk 06:40, 3 March 2008 (MST)
Er... I know why you brought this up; it really is a standard across most wiki's. Therefore it makes me lean towards implementing it... Anyway, if this is to get implemented I do not want an obtrusive template, like the one on Uncyclopedia. Any thoughts for a good template? P.S. I like the second implementation more. --Green Dragon 13:37, 3 March 2008 (MST)
This is a Featured Article! Cscr-featured.png
Thoughts?
--Green Dragon 14:33, 3 March 2008 (MST)
How do you handle projects? Does LotR count as one or a few hundred? Does the title page of LotR count? --Pwsnafu 17:38, 3 March 2008 (MST)
The main reason I was thinking about it is it puts some of our best work on the front page which draws in visitors instead of going through all those links to find something cool it's right there you can read it then people are more likely to go searching for more. It's also a recognition of your hard work having it on the main page. I like your little Featured article template is it for the talk page or the actual page if it's for the actual page perhaps it could be centered that way it blends in more being between the table of contents and the author template. We'd need some guidelines or criteria for making a page featured, and some one to arbitrate the process (and make final decisions) we can call him/her the Article Master or AM (like DM lol). we need to get some ideas rolling then maybe take a vote? --Hawk 19:06, 3 March 2008 (MST)
Pwsnafu: I'd say for something like that it would be best to feature the main page of a project, not all subpages would need to be as good but there would still be a standard of quality for the entire project. Conversely a particularly good subpage which can stand on it's own could also be featured. --Hawk 19:10, 3 March 2008 (MST)
I've just been stareing at the main page for awhile and so far I haven't thought of much in the way of how we could format it. About the only thing I can think of would be move the tavern schedule down next to the news and then use that blank space next to the menu for the featured articles. EDIT: personally I'd be for moving the tavern schedule to its own page. --Hawk 19:29, 3 March 2008 (MST)
Featured Articles --Green Dragon 01:42, 4 March 2008 (MST)
I'm all for it, if it means that even wanton visitors can get a more inside view of the site at first glance. It might persuade some of them to stick around and lord knows dandwiki can use more contributors :O. --Sulacu 10:01, 5 March 2008 (MST)
Yes! --Penske 15:27, 5 March 2008 (MST)
Now we just need some featured articles :P. Hard to judge the true value of a system if it isn't used. --Sulacu 18:29, 5 March 2008 (MST)

Gygax Gone at 69[edit]

Gary Gygax, co-creator of D&D with Dave Arneson, passed away Tuesday, March 4th, 2008, at the age of 69. Read coverage on it at Wired, BBC News, Yahoo! News, /., and many other news sites. —Sledged (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (MST)

Discussion:The Passing of a Giant - RIP Gary Gygax --Hawk 09:21, 5 March 2008 (MST)
Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors