Talk:Main Page/Archive 4

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 3 |
Archive 4 |

Praise for this site[edit]

This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.

Kudos to the WebMaster. --Gildavinor 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --Harry Mason 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)
Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --Green Dragon 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)
Totally agree. --Lord Mattos 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)
Ditto on the praise...very useful indeed! I also find myself using this site quite often to quickly double check on rules and stats. One of the better tools out there to assist in great gaming. I hope to see this site up and running for a very long time. Again, thanks for the assistance! --User:Torbuk 16:45, 17 September 2012 (EST)

Two Millionth View![edit]

Looks like today was the day folks! 2 million views on the main page!   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:46, 14 October 2009 (MDT)

Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --Io 16:52, 13 January 2010


And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!

Size[edit]

how many Megabytes is this whole site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.12.83.73 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Why? --Green Dragon 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)
I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--Lt.Dan 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)
You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("View Page Source" for Mozilla Firefox). --Green Dragon 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)

The Tavern[edit]

After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --Harry Mason 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.. The main reason is "...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity." Green Dragon "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --Green Dragon 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --Harry Mason 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking...
Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--ElfsMaster 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
But this is a wiki, and by not having the sidetrack of a chat users may tend to rely more on the already established discussion tool. Or they can leave messages on talk pages of other users. It actually encourages the opening of discussions and talks between users on the wiki - which can lead to more wiki additions and improvements, instead of just idle chatter.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- Jota 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --Ozzy1234567890 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)

Search Incapacitation[edit]

The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --Harry Mason 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it actually giving you an error, or just pulling up the extended/advanced search function (which is normal when you don't type an article name perfectly)?.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.
I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult Sevant 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Search is working once again. --Green Dragon 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

Official Content Designation[edit]

Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. Banaticus 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--Vrail 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "Back to Main Page3.5e HomebrewClassesPrestige Classes"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.
Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. JazzMan 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures Down?[edit]

While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? Aristocles 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under this header. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --Vrail 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Images have been fixed. --Green Dragon 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)
Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! DragonFist 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)
This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --Green Dragon 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

Marking a page as homebrew[edit]

How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. 97.93.94.242 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)

Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in Category:User. JazzMan 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)
You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --Badger 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

3 Million View[edit]

Just a quick pat on the back, as per Statistics the main page has hit 3 million views. Too bad our news is months behind.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:46, 3 January 2011 (MST)

That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --Calidore Chase 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)

Advice on Creating Animal[edit]

Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse

I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go here and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing --~~~~ . --Badger 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)
Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --Ozzy1234567890 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)

April 1[edit]

Is there going to be another April Fools thing this year? -Ozzy1234567890 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --Milo High-Hill 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)
If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the 1e DMG. —Sledged (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)
I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--Milo High-Hill 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)

Sheild Bash?[edit]

Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grunt (talkcontribs) 2011-04-12 16:36. Please sign your posts!

Not quite. A spiked heavy shield does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —Sledged (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)

Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help?[edit]

Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game Prototype and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated. DND 3.5 PLEASE!

The best person to ask, I believe, is Badger. --Ozzy1234567890 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)

Campaign Setting Help[edit]

Discussion moved to User talk:Ohgren#I have a question. --Badger 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)

Have an Idea[edit]

Discussion moved to Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations. --Badger 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)

Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent[edit]

Discussion moved to SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent. Sledged (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

Site nominated for an Award[edit]

Oggie statue trans small.png

Just thought I would let you guys know: D&D Wiki has been nominated for an OGGIE. The OGGIEs are the industry awards thereby. Nowhere near as big as the ENnies or Origin awards, the OGGIEs reflect the games, people, and tools that our members appreciate.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:52, 14 August 2011 (MDT)

Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --Green Dragon 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)
I don't follow GD. This isn't a site, simply an award. One of the sites mentioned is that link is also up for it, but its not a link or anything. If you prefer to not accept the nomination, we can revert to one of the other nominees that had lesser votes. Not really sure what you mean by the above statement.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:08, 15 August 2011 (MDT)
I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --Green Dragon 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)
Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --Badger 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)
What link?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   06:10, 16 August 2011 (MDT)
No. Because they have Category:Valgora Setting content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --Green Dragon 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)
Although that is wholly incorrect in regards to how licensing works when the original author publishes , its not what I'm asking. What link? Being nominated for an award has not resulted in a single link off site. So again, what link?
Anyways, in the interest of not rearguing an argument you've already lost that has no bearing, if you're uncomfortable let me know and well invalidate the nomination and let the next site in line receive it. (Didn't mean for that to sound rude, dang text based conversations. I just have no interest in revisiting the license discussion, especially when I see no connection)   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:55, 16 August 2011 (MDT)
Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --Badger 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)
It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)
I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. Jwguy 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)
The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --Green Dragon 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)
Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To what, exactly? --173.245.56.158 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)
I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended.
"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."
Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. Jwguy 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".
"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.
Not accepting anything, linking to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --Green Dragon 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)
Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. They nominated the wiki for an award. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? 173.245.56.158 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
I'd link to it, but......... Its "Website of the Year." Other contestants include a project funding platform site, a community game development & playtest site, an RPG advocacy site, etc.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:57, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --Badger 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
What content or license? The award is not a license, its simply an award. The winners will be given fair use to display the appropriate award. That's the only license at all related to this. GD, everyone is having a very hard time understanding you. We're not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're making no sense.The award is simply an acknowledgement of appreciation, it has no other effect. To say an acknowledgements somehow equals irrelevance is hard to follow.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:10, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles for more information about the problem. --Green Dragon 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
Umm, what? I don't know if this is the worse, or best, conversation ever.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:06, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --Badger 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon
Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering anything irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of Irrelevant, by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). Jwguy 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)
It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. 173.245.56.158 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)
(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.
With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from DnD Links (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.
(considering it is an out-dated license anyway) does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --Green Dragon 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.
To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which does allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. Jwguy 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)
That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --Badger 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)
We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --Green Dragon 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [1] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --Badger 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)
Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also Template:Cc-by-nc-sa). That is the current method– why a cross-dependency? --Green Dragon 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently wrong with v1.2, but v1.3 is specifically designed for wiki projects. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --Badger 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also Template:Cc-by-nc-sa)? --Green Dragon 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --Badger 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "annoying situation" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --Green Dragon 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we update to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though we don't have to use it on our site. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --Badger 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also Template:Cc-by-nc-sa) so I do not see a reason at all. --Green Dragon 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.
GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be stubborn, either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? Jwguy 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

Comment[edit]

With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. JazzMan 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? :) --Badger 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)
I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --Green Dragon 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)
I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. JazzMan 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)
It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --173.245.50.26 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)
Umm... DnD Links and Warning Policy are so...? Read them please. --Green Dragon 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)
Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. JazzMan 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most chihuahua-like" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --173.245.55.206 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --Green Dragon 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --Badger 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Help:Talk Pages and Help:Using_talk_pages should direct you where appropriately. --Green Dragon 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, here). --Badger 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Ha, bad troll is bad. Welcome back "totally anonymous" "third party" user! I'm so excited about your opinion! Come back to me with it when you're helping run an awards program for a international non-profit with over 3,000 members across 15 states and three countries! Your posts give me such faith that you'll do it!
Yawn, back to life (back to reality). Only our big categories (i.e. game of year, company of year, lifetime etc.) got tons of member nominations. Our smaller categories like website were based on just a handful (for instance, I have no qualms telling you that D&D Wiki made the last official nominee position with just 7 nominations) - so it really isn't upsetting anything on O.G.R.E.s end to move the next site up in the rank. However, as a longtime site user, speaking not from the O.G.R.E.s side but the D&D Wiki side - it is extremely disappointing that proven false interpretations and misunderstandings of licensing laws have stunted the growth rate of the site (though by no means killed it - yet), and to now even prevent recognition and appreciation and celebration of the site. Meh.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:00, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.
Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --Green Dragon 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --Badger 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)
Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? JazzMan 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --Badger 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
So, GD - let me make sure I understand what you've said. You're okay being on the list, for possible voting - just not with making any back links (which we're not asking for). Is that correct? Just let me know before the 1st, when voting starts.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   16:45, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
Everything is fine except that we may not give such a link. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --Green Dragon 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
Where is that policy? The only thing on DnD Links is a link to Meta_Pages#Policies, which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. JazzMan 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
It's the "As per policy the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links." --Green Dragon 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) JazzMan 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.
Anyways, back on topic - I suppose we'll leave that site on the vote. I don't know how, or if, GD wants to showcase a win if the site does get a gold or silver (possibly a userbox style code without a link just the info?), but that isn't my concern when I'm the me-who-works-for-OGREs. But as the me-who-is-a-site-member, it is.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:10, 25 August 2011 (MDT)
Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies:
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.
Meta_Pages#Policies
--Badger 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Oh, it's fine to host valgora content. It just must be licensed as it is. The link or no link discussion is for Talk:DnD Links (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --Green Dragon 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --Badger 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Considering that Valgora originated on CBGwiki, which allows derivative copies under similar license - and that the OGREs hosted version came from there - this is a moot point. So its twice moot. Short story: lets keep with the times and update the license. Community vote first if you'd prefer.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --Green Dragon 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:
  1. You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links
  2. You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website
  3. OGRES is not against any general policies of the website
  4. Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)
  5. Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)
QED.
Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?
On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example WP:OR does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? JazzMan 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
"You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website"; which it does not. This is a discussion for links.
None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --Green Dragon 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. JazzMan 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --Green Dragon 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the Warning Policy. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. JazzMan 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
No, actually I was not. The Warning Policy has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --Green Dragon 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)
Considering O.G.R.E.s has never contacted you (this message about the award I posted as a long time user here being the most official contact - ever), to say rudeness, belittling, or lying has been done is extremely uncivil on your part, GD.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:33, 27 August 2011 (MDT)
"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --Green Dragon 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"
Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.
Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. Jwguy 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)
I'd love to know as well. But it is my understanding that GD simply believes that hosting Category:Valgora Setting content on O.G.R.E.s wiki violated the licensing agreement for Valgora on this wiki (an argument proven wrong at Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating. With that in mind though, let's keep all licensing conversations there, to make this easier to follow and contribute to for all users.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)
Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please link to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. JazzMan 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

It cannot be Warning Policy ("When one does not edit" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki)." If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --Green Dragon 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. JazzMan 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --Green Dragon 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could Yahoo! [2] JazzMan 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
"When one does not edit" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a Warning Policy). They must fix the problem or get banned. --Green Dragon 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)
As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --Badger 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)
I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. JazzMan 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)
Though it seems pointless, voting is open. Figure out the link if you wish. The site is currently way behind in it's category, however.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

Digital D&D Books[edit]

a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --Ozzy1234567890 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --Badger 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. Zau 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --Green Dragon 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --Badger 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --Ozzy1234567890 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)

Glitch?[edit]

Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --Reddragonl33t

With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. JazzMan 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)
Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per Add New 3.5e Equipment) and it worked fine. --Green Dragon 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

Just a bit of a problem[edit]

I just want to say that I love the site and I am currently using a homebrew race for my character but Me and my DM have come to an impass...

I chose the geode for my race but I want to play a dragonfire adept and as such class I need to breath, any idea how we could get around this? Mega0live 16:01, 15 December 2011 (MST)

This question would fit better in the discussion section of the site.--Milo High-Hill 01:48, 16 December 2011 (MST)

Frustration[edit]

I had to go through a catraphrase thing, GAH! How I would like to ring the neck of who did what they did to this site... I mean that they need to be more mature and not spam/upload things to this site that can harm it.... Sorry, just wish I could find who was responsible... Mega0live 05:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

And if this is unnessesary I am sorry... Mega0live 06:01, 9 January 2012 (MST)

What are you talking about? What is "a catraphrase thing"? --Green Dragon 10:57, 9 January 2012 (MST)
Probably got snagged by cloudflare. Happened to me for about a week in November/December. --Ganre 12:03, 9 January 2012 (MST)
I have been asked to turn up the cloudflare security options on User talk:Green Dragon#Spam (again/still). Are you saying it is too strict? --Green Dragon 12:09, 9 January 2012 (MST)
Sorry, the catraphrase thing is the type the 2 above words thing to get into things. Mega0live 18:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)
I don't think it is too strict, but i think it needs to be targeted to edits, not just viewing. --Ganre 08:14, 10 January 2012 (MST)
Here are their options. --Green Dragon 11:35, 10 January 2012 (MST)
Which plan do we currently use? What are our settings? I don't know how to tell if the settings aren't high enough, if the software isn't working, or if spammers are just finding a way around it. Really, if these spammers are just a bunch of Chinese people with proxied IP addresses, theree's nothing stopping them from spamming. AFAICT, cloudflare only protects us from automatically generated spam (aka bot spam), correct? JazzMan 12:25, 20 January 2012 (MST)

5th Edition[edit]

This might be a bit premature(it's never happened to me before, I swear!), but apparently, WotC has announced 5th ed. Should we open a section up on the wiki, or is it too soon? --Ganre 12:19, 9 January 2012 (MST)

Do you know where their official release information is? I can't seem to find it in their news section. --Green Dragon 12:50, 9 January 2012 (MST)
I am not sure if this is okay to post, as it is an external link: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109 --Ganre 14:42, 9 January 2012 (MST)
You are fine to post the external links on DnD Links (see the top) anywhere and in any manner.
The next edition will be treated like 4e (and 2.5e, etc). Would you be interested in spear-heading this new edition as the game is finalized? --Green Dragon 21:26, 9 January 2012 (MST)
I would be, if it doesn't suck... --Ganre 08:11, 10 January 2012 (MST)
Glad to hear it. As soon as there is information about how things are done feel free to start. If/when you need help I am more then willing. --Green Dragon 11:33, 10 January 2012 (MST)

Cloudflare Issue[edit]

Over the past couple weeks, I've been occasionally getting an error message from Cloudflare indicating that the site is down. Can anyone explain what's going on with that? -Silverkin 07:51, 16 January 2012 (MST)

One time may have been when I deleted my talk page, since I put my password on it, and I could not restore it without the site having to go down because of setup issues. How often has this cloudflare issue been happening? --Green Dragon 16:05, 16 January 2012 (MST)
It's happened to me three times, on different days each time. I can say with confidence that all three were within the last month or two. -Silverkin 16:12, 16 January 2012 (MST)
It happened to me several times last year and once yesterday.--Milo High-Hill 17:14, 16 January 2012 (MST)
I have this problem from time to time, but it was not until recently that I discovered I am exacerbating the problem. When the site goes down I usually keep a window open and click refresh periodically until the page loads. Last time the site went down I thought it had been down for days, but then I noticed that there is a link to click if you think the site is back up and you are getting the page in error (in other words, it forces the page to load fresh, instead of from your cache). Lo and behold, the site loaded and people had been editing the entire time I thought it was down! JazzMan 12:27, 20 January 2012 (MST)

Concerning edits to this page[edit]

Green Dragon, you have made edits to the text of yours and other people's comments in violation of our policies, as I have explained below. Your initial explanation for the removal was "some removed because USA and English (oxford) would deal with "the warning" not D&D Wiki, removed based off inappropriate behavior, removed circular comments". Per our policies, you can not remove any text -- including your own -- unless it violates one of 5 very specific rules. "Circular comments" are not in violation, whatever the USA thing means is not in violation, and while inappropriate behavior is a violation, any offenders should have been warned. None of the five rules allow you to remove any mention of OGREs, none of them allow you to remove entire lines of someone's argument, thus changing the entire meaning of their post (see my logic around line 307 -- this is in every letter and spirit of the law the reason for the Wikipedia policy in the first place), and really, none of these rules allow you to edit your own wording for clarity (the Wikipedia policy to which we default HEAVILY frowns upon this) or fix other people's links. Your newest reason "All Policy violations - although not necessarily OURS" is, frankly, somewhat unbelievable. Am I to believe that we are to remove ANY content that is in violation of ANY policy ANYWHERE? Should I delete the entire wiki, as I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere with the policy that all content must be in Italian? In addition, this conversation took place months ago. Why is it even relevant now, unless you thought nobody was paying attention to it any more?

I'm sure you will be removing the content once again, but if you do so I implore you to please follow our policies as written and (a) itemize what changes you are making and for what reason you have made them (meaning one-by--one, not a blanket statement), (b) make any changes without changing the intent of what someone has said, and (c) make any changes related to policy violations based on the policies of this website. We have no governing body, no law enforcement; the only thing we have are what few rules are actually thought out and codified. Without those we are just in anarchy and nobody wants to stay around and build up our website. Thank you for your understanding. JazzMan 12:22, 20 January 2012 (MST)

Discussions have a purpose, per the word "discussion". If someone cannot levelly read discussions there is a problem somewhere.
So, why are there problems with discussions? The problems come from humans. Humans make mistakes. Some people say that we should learn from our mistakes. If it is true that we should learn from our mistakes, then D&D Wiki cannot put that on someone else without their consent.
Since this is true it is totally fine to remove parts from discussions that do not belong within this understanding. Why? To think otherwise is wrong for the human discussing the imposed learning and, following the golden rule, doing else how than removing the comment would alleviate that person to a state of un-understanding (that which is their nemesis). For this reason it is civilized.
Now, why were the comments above removed? Either they did not adhere to DnD Links, would become that editors nemesis (and is justified per above), or are shown to be not true (e.g. need to referenced not by a myth) but are not about our format. --Green Dragon 22:44, 22 January 2012 (MST)
I didn't have a problem reading any of the comments and understanding them, with few exceptions to some of your posts, GD, and that I simply expect is a product of non-native languages, though I may not be correct. Also, considering that you removed whole portions of mine and others people's comments, including important conjectures and statements that were made in argument against you, it would appear to me that what you were attempting to do was completely skew the conversation away from its original incarnation and into a form that suited you and yours ends. Truthfully, that is despicable, and not a portion of your above post seems to justify it at all. Jwguy 08:00, 23 January 2012 (MST)
I don't need to tell you anything about myself. How about you tell me something about yourself? If you can't do anything other then throw insults at people (which you will be warned for) then do not comment further. If the above comments continue along their trajectory this discussion will be reverted and the user will be warned appropriately (circular discussions). --Green Dragon 09:38, 23 January 2012 (MST)
I didn't ask for information about you, so I'm not sure where you got that. I explained my perspective of the situation and explored the issue, for which your reasons have not been very sufficient in justifying. That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame. Threatening people with warnings and simply deeming their posts to be insults doesn't change that. This is but another reason for my concern regarding the non-native languages. Constant misinterpretation. Jwguy 13:29, 23 January 2012 (MST)
How about you quit classifying me? These (see Wikipedia) will be the reasoning behind your warnings. If you don't understand that you are classifying me then understand that you are. "That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame" is telling me that I did just that. Did I do just what you said? No. I explained the reasoning behind censorship (how am I through this placing myself in a situation?). Anyone could explain this to you, so the words are helping the reciever– no one is placing themselves anywhere for a later time to change things (if this is what you mean by that possibility). --Green Dragon 13:40, 23 January 2012 (MST)
At the risk of stepping on someone else's toes, I think what Jwguy was trying to say is that sometimes your sentence structure does not make sense to us. There is no ill intent on anybody's part, simply some sort of communication barrier. It seems that you might be a non-native speaker (and to my memory, I don't think you've ever confirmed or denied this, not that the answer itself ultimately matters), but it could just be that we all use different syntax. Then, sometimes, when we ask you to explain what you mean, you feel that we are asking you to repeat yourself. Well, that is actually what we are asking, but we are not doing so just to annoy you, we are doing so because if we do not understand where you are coming from then we can never truly reach an understanding about anything. In addition, sometimes after I read something you write a few times I get a different (I think, truer) interpretation. Some people are not as patient as I, and would then assume you are saying something you are not saying. It's not classifying any more than saying JazzMan uses a lot of independent an parenthetical clauses; while it's true it puts me into a "group" of people (those who use many sub-clauses in their writing structure -- see? I'm doing it again!), it is not intended to be a positive or negative connotation. It just is. JazzMan 15:01, 23 January 2012 (MST)
First things first: I speculate, Green Dragon. I don't classify, label, or designate, or however it might be described. As Jazzman says, your mannerisms and statements are often difficult to understand ("If you don't understand that you are classifying me then understand that you are", for example, doesn't make much sense, as it is a circular statement and illogical), and seem like they could be a result of not being a native speaker of English. I favor the possibly, but only because there has been little explanation and because it is a high probability, given the fact that the internet stretches across the world. My statement regarding "That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame" was referring to the sentence before it, in which I said that your explanation and reasons did not appear sufficient in justifying your actions. That's not a classification. It is an opinion. Furthermore, while you say "Anyone" could explain this to me, it would appear that I am not alone in my opinion, considering the condemnation of the actions that have erupted from even more prominent members, of whom have contributed far more to this wiki, than myself. Because of this, I doubt the justification that seems apparent to you for your actions is truly as received as you seem to believe. Once more, I speculate. Truth be told, if you do indeed do all of this for despicable reasons, then that is how I feel. I don't withdraw those feelings regarding such actions, for they are the direct result stemming from the actions themselves. Deeming our sincerest arguments and thoughts regarding your policies and statements discussing those policies as "mistakes", as you so eloquently put it, and taking it upon yourself to "correct" them, specifically, is a breach of policy, in itself, and tyrannical. If you truly thought you were trying to do good, then I will simply say, Please, do not. If you had ulterior motives, then I will leave it, and that I must voice my distaste for it. Jwguy 16:52, 23 January 2012 (MST)
Let me just make it clear for you to understand GD: Unless a direct violation of policy or a cuss word, do not edit another user's talk page message. The trail of facts showcases that you have altered the actual meaning of some of our edits, almost always in ways that remove any disagreement with you.
Anyways, time to remove this website from my browser tabs. No need to stick around for the full death rattle.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:32, 23 January 2012 (MST)
I have explained the reasoning behind the matter of censorship.
On a different matter, I am open to anything really. If you want to become this "GD" you have realized, by all means let me know. In the past I have vetoed changes in the format based off an ability to disregard other users while not disregarding oneself, and I will not put with with incivility (this will result in an even worse atmosphere, although one could argue that with some comments people make it is already like that anyway– but I will give warnings as appropriate). But if you want to make a new format, I am open. Actually, a change in the status quo could be good for all of us. --Green Dragon 22:01, 23 January 2012 (MST)
Could you clarify what you mean by this? On a different matter, I am open to anything really. If you want to become this "GD" you have realized, by all means let me know. In the past I have vetoed changes in the format based off an ability to disregard other users while not disregarding oneself You say that your open to ideas but then you say that you have stopped changes because you disregard others. This doesn't make sense and as said by the posters above we don't truelly understand the message you are trying to convey. --Milo High-Hill 23:49, 23 January 2012 (MST)
I am saying that you can think outside the format here. If you don't understand what I am saying, form a committee to answer all questions on all section pages. I'm done with this understanding people develop and I am saying that you should get over it. I'm not your mom, question-answerer, or who knows what. If you need someone you can relate to– it may or may not be me but don't expect it to be me. Make the format work for you, don't expect me to work for you. --Green Dragon 08:53, 24 January 2012 (MST)
Don't get me wrong, while I love that idea, you have ultimate veto power. So there's no point in spending time deciding something ourselves if you don't end up liking it, hence including you on everything. JazzMan 12:41, 24 January 2012 (MST)
I'd say the above two points are my only real points of contention. Per above, make it transparent and equal as well as do not disregard civility. --Green Dragon 14:16, 24 January 2012 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Are you saying that as long as we make policy and other important decisions clear, and equal, we can implement things without your express approval? I would be more than happy to work with Jazzman (or anyone interested) on making a FAQ page of sorts (perhaps as part of the help guide I'm slowly working on), where we answer confusing points, and explicitly define policy? This will require making some judgement calls on existing policy (what stays, what goes, what gets clarified, and what is covered). Are you giving us the go-ahead to do that without your explicit consent? --Badger 18:19, 24 January 2012 (MST)
Absolutely. I would put it in DnD Guidelines for now. Or what do you think? --Green Dragon 20:29, 24 January 2012 (MST)

We didn't start the fire...[edit]

Meltdown #2? #3? While other dnd wiki sites are flourishing with quality content rather than a bunch of unfinished, useless garbage.

Your (unsigned, cowardly)comment strikes me as deconstructive. Be helpful, add quality, or be gone(Please note this is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Wiki, GD, BD, or any other "D" than perhaps the myserious "d" that has infected the optimized character build section). --Ganre 08:50, 21 January 2012 (MST)
Although we do have quite a lot of chaff to process: deletion candidates and abandoned pages.Marasmusine 09:46, 21 January 2012 (MST)
Don't forget d20 Modern. That one musical guy keeps saying he's going to revamp the whole thing but never has... JazzMan 11:26, 21 January 2012 (MST)
There are a number of us that have been updating pages. When it comes to the publications, it takes quite a while to update. Please be a bit patient, or better yet, help yourself by providing some quality content.-- Irykyl 09:28, 7 February 2012 (MST)

Quick Question[edit]

Are 3.5 and older sections still being attended to or are they pretty much abandoned now with 4e? Tivanir 11:13, 7 March 2012 (MST)

Yes 3.5 still gets updated. I don't play Pathfinder or 4th ed. Also, I see alot of info for 3.5e published. -- Irykyl 11:21, 7 March 2012 (MST)
I add to 3.5 all the time.--Milo High-Hill 14:36, 7 March 2012 (MST)
Just figured I should ask since there seems to be a lot of stub articles and a lot of unfinished classes and such. Any problems starting to either mark them up or suggest them for deletion if they are over a year old? Tivanir 16:33, 7 March 2012 (MST)
On a side note there are a ton of classes in the homebrew that haven't been updated in a long time marked quite a few as abandoned or need to be deleted. I didn't even make it through the B's yet. Tivanir 17:48, 7 March 2012 (MST)
It's encouraged to add Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Article Templates to pages.
I looked over your addition of these templates. I may have made some mistakes, but I recommend that you take a look at the reasons behind those that I changed and learn from them. --Green Dragon 22:28, 7 March 2012 (MST)
No problem just trying to clean it up a bit I will look at them here in a bit. Tivanir 05:40, 8 March 2012 (MST)
Quick question is there any area where we can ask for review of things we are finished working on? Finished up three classes and wanted to see about getting feedback for improvements before I start working on the fluff in each. Tivanir 18:24, 13 March 2012 (MDT)
See also Category:Needs Review. --Green Dragon 18:33, 13 March 2012 (MDT)

Campaign Standards[edit]

We need to establish standards for Campaign Specific pages, I.E. "_____ Supplement" pages. What constitutes the use of a unique campaign page, and why? This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. More prominent campaigns go untouched but display the same criteria in their unique environments and deities.

My belief had been that if the page was wholly unique to the campaign (For example, planes, gods, equipment, etc. that are integral to the campaign or use information and/or rulesets outside of standard 3.5 edition), then it was qualified for the unique page, in order to separate and mark it as a campaign-specific article, as Green Dragon seemed to communicate here. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.

This is why I believe it is necessary to establish the policies regarding campaign-specific pages. Jwguy 05:08, 26 March 2012 (MDT)

[3] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (2:1). Issued on 13:38, 26 March 2012 (MDT) --Green Dragon 13:38, 26 March 2012 (MDT).

His actions in this matter make perfect sense. It only goes into (Campaign Supplement) if it doesn't fit the other content of this site and is campaign information. Stuff like Monsters go in 3.5e Creature. Stuff like classes go in 3.5e Class. I myself have been slowly fixing my setting and turning its stuff to (3.5e [race/class/etc.]). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milo v3 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!
If that is the case, then very well, but I would still like to get a firm policy on such things, to avoid confrontation in the future. The actions seemed erratic and senseless considering their less than uniform nature, and his singling-out the Tirr campaign, which had been mostly low-key compared to some other, more notable campaigns with the same procedures. Jwguy 07:11, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
I encountered it going through what links here on Template:Deity (which I am still working on). It was right there, so I fixed them.
Please do some reading before posting things like this.
Quoting 3.5e Campaign Settings:
"Create new campaign settings and supplemental pages Create new campaign settings"
"Create new equivocal supplemental pages"
"Equivocal pages should be added in their respective locations with {{3.5e Campaign Settings Breadcrumb}} → [[MyCampaignSetting (3.5e Campaign Setting)|MyCampaignSetting]] added after the breadcrumb respectively and [[Category:Setting]] [[Category:Supplement]] and [[Category:MyCampaignSetting Setting]] added after the categories respectively. It may then be linked to appropriately from other campaign setting pages."
"You may want to add descriptive pages explaining how similar equivocal supplemental pages are integrated into the campaign setting. Pages that fit this recommendation are not listed below."
"Create new unequivocal supplemental pages"
--Green Dragon 13:28, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
As a point of order here, Jwguy, moving something from one tag to another in no way constitutes vandalism, unless someone does something like moving it to "Page Name (Stinky Head Campaign" or whatever.
GD, to me, that description is very, very unclear. For one, I'm not sure what an "equivocal supplemental page" is. For two, the long sentence peppered with code segments is very hard to read and not very direct (It's also hidden from the main page). I don't think it would do us any harm to define the line between CS-only pages and generic pages. In my view, we should err on the side of putting it into a campaign setting, not bringing it out with the rest of the stuff. JazzMan 14:44, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
Warnings, huh? I didn't lie or belittle you. I didn't know what you were doing, and it looked as if you were just running amok through the campaign for some reason. You really didn't make any real explanation for your actions, either, before or when asked, so forgive me for being 'baffled'. That's not important, though.
Also, with respect, Jazzman, my thoughts regarding vandalism are that when something is done to disrupt an article, including moving it outside of its respective categories or sections, knowingly, that it qualifies. In this case, I appear to have been misinformed of the categories and sections being initially appropriate.
Back on topic; Very well, I will concede, as it appears I am outnumbered and have misinterpreted these policies regarding the campaign settings. I did read the block of text you're referring to, Green Dragon, but it left me uncertain as to its meaning, considering that the use of the word 'equivocal' so often in regards to this is confusing: It's noun, "Equivocation", is a logical fallacy, and the adjective means "1. ambiguous or 2. Uncertain or questionable in nature". Pairing that with the context of other campaigns existing peacefully with pages of similar issues, including the prized Valgora of such ambivalent repute, considering our past discussions on the site. Jwguy 14:49, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
he didn't single you out. He has told me to change pages from my setting from its Supplement tag to standard homebrew tags. But I am equally confused about the equivocal supplemental page stuff.--Milo High-Hill 16:05, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
It appeared that way, at least, at the time, and is part of the reason for my suspicion. I received no such notice, nor did I even know anything was incorrectly applied. That's what I'm saying: I just saw a ton of edits and moves with little to no reason for them, mostly with stuff like "links" as the reason, all out of the Tirr Campaign. Up until now, that's all I knew. For what it is worth, I will begin processing the pages, as well, now that it has been clarified. Jwguy 16:23, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
I am not a grammatical expert (my studies of English go only so far). What does not make sense with that wording? I can say that coming up with the wording was a concern for me (it was hard to articulate it simply while also articulate it fully). --Green Dragon 16:42, 26 March 2012 (MDT)
The word 'equivocal' is the uncertain part, and the paragraph seems like it could use some re-evaluation in general. Let me take a crack at it, to see if I can come up with an informative, maybe a bit cleaner version. Check the campaign settings page and tell me if this is to everyone's approval. I tried to address the issues as best as possible, while retaining the original message. Jwguy 22:14, 27 March 2012 (MDT)

Class locked[edit]

Morning, afternoon or whatever the case might be. I found a class today that is no where near completion but it is locked out of editing, it is the Mystic Knight (3.5e Class) and it isn't even close to being complete (however it has enough to complete.) Is this going to remain locked and be forever unable to be completed or is there a forum to suggest it is unlocked so the class can be finished? Tivanir 12:42, 1 April 2012 (MDT)

You might want to bring that up on the class's talk page.--Ganre 09:57, 2 April 2012 (MDT)
Keep in mind that you may want to add Template:Needsadmin to the talk page as well. --Green Dragon 11:30, 2 April 2012 (MDT)
Ha. I forgot that I had already ran into that page, two years ago. Jwguy 11:52, 2 April 2012 (MDT)
I think it's inconsistent of us to lock the page for some people but tell others they don't have control over their work. As such I have unlocked it, but GD feel free to lock it back if I have stepped on toes (and in which case, I think it should be deleted; only completed content should be stagnant). JazzMan 17:32, 2 April 2012 (MDT)
If the main contributor(s) agree(s) to lock the page it can be locked. The page, like in this instance, can be unlocked by those with the privileges to do that if it can be so determined as worthy thereby. I don't see a problem here at all. The page's history will serve as a marker too. --Green Dragon 20:38, 2 April 2012 (MDT)

Categories[edit]

At the moment our category structure goes:

  • DnD
    • (dnd content)
  • Publication
    • Dungeons & Dragons
      • (dnd publications)
    • D20
      • (d20 publications)
      • (d20 content)
    • Edition
      • 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, etc
        • (dnd content)
        • (dnd publications)


As I understand it, the Publication category is for the specific books (PHB, DMG, etc), whilst the DnD root directory is for our actual content. There's some redundancy going on too, with articles categorized for example as both DnD and 4e (if it's 4e, of course it's DnD).

I'd like to propose:

  • DnD
    • 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, etc
      • (dnd content)
      • (dnd publications)
  • D20Root
    • (d20 content)
    • (d20 publications)
  • Publication
    • Dungeons & Dragons
      • (dnd publications)
    • D20
      • (d20 publications)


We won't have to recategorize any articles, but the change is that:

  1. "D20Root" is a root directory like "DnD" for the purpose of hosting our content (obviously it will need a better name, but we can't call it "D20" without recategorizing all the d20 publications with that existing category name.)
  2. The "Edition" category is gone.
  3. Publications and Content are better delineated, although there is still a necessary crossover at the 2e, 3e, 4e categories.
  4. There will be no need to categorize every D&D homebrew article with the DnD category - as long as they have an edition category they will be in a direct subcategory of DnD and no other root directory. Marasmusine 02:31, 4 April 2012 (MDT)
I support the change, though I am not sure whether it is token support or not. I'm all for the betterment of the site, structurally speaking. Jwguy 06:25, 4 April 2012 (MDT)
I like the changes as well...not that it really matters, LOL.-- Irykyl 09:37, 4 April 2012 (MDT)
I am in favor of the reorganization. It will make a lot more sense, and personally I actually have been in favor of such a structure for a while now. --Green Dragon 12:21, 4 April 2012 (MDT)

What would the marking be?[edit]

Ok I just ran across a class from the PHB2 that isn't under OGL as far as I am aware. What should I mark it as for removal? Tivanir 11:25, 11 April 2012 (MDT)


This will probably work. --Ganre 14:51, 11 April 2012 (MDT)
  • {{Delete|~~~~~|This material is from the PHB 2, and is not OGL content}}
That'll work. Maybe even a {{needsadmin|Copyright violation}}, since it'd be violating copyright, and that's all super-serious. What page was it? Jwguy 21:35, 11 April 2012 (MDT)
It was dragon shaman for 3.5e it looks like they changed it slightly (I believe the auras increase power in 2's if I remember right) but it is essentially the same. It may qualify as a varient if they change enough but from what I saw I would say it is about 95% the same at least (I can do a compare and contrast of the wording and abilities if we want to see how much it actually differs). Tivanir 09:43, 12 April 2012 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors