Talk:Meta Pages

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Template Pages in Categories[edit]

I was just wondering, many of the template pages for the categories are listed as being in the category. I have recently completely cleaned out the wording issues page, however the template page for it is still listed in the category. This is kind of annoying as I have put so much time into cleaning it out and there are still pages in it. Would it be possible to remove the template pages from the category, as was done, for example, with Template:Adult Theme? --Vrail 16:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to make <includeonly> and </includeonly> work with #switch:? --Green Dragon 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I checked over [1] wiki page and didn't find anything on it. If you want you can take a look, being better than me at this you may have more luck.
If we move the templates for wording, abandoned, etc. to the actual template page, then removed them from jazzman's workspace then just added the <includeonly> and </includeonly> codes to it, would it not remove it from the category page? --Vrail 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ya, but I moved them into one to guarantee standardization at the time and now for ease of changes. Let me check something else. --Green Dragon 23:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I got the desired result. Could you let me know if you see anything wrong? --Green Dragon 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Will do, I'm here to help. :) Just wondering, jazzman's workspace template is still in the category, is it possible now for jazz to remove these without repercussions?--Vrail 01:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Found a big problem... all of the reasons for posting these templates simply say 'no reason given' in red. They are also all posted twice.--Vrail 02:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason is fine now. Why oh why, however, is <includeonly> and </includeonly> not working? Any ideas? --Green Dragon 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I might know, I'll take a look at it. (I'll also move my workspace thing to a better place). JazzMan 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I just got it to work. I just added <noinclude> and </noinclude> starting after the information we want to be the "template". --Green Dragon 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
We could move the information in your workspace (which are all the reviewing templates (save merge)) to the Template:Reviewing Template, but the <includeonly> and </includeonly> do not work hierarchically as far as I know. Ideas? --Green Dragon 16:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, if we do that then reviewing template will be in all the categories, so it doesn't really get around the problem. I think, though, that the table should probably have it's own page (maybe Meta Pages/Template Use or Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates) and then link to it from the "Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles" section as well as Help:Portal.
The only problem is we will still have the problem of the subpage showing up in all the categories. It can probably be gotten around... but not without some work. Hrm, actually I might have an idea, let me try it and get back to you. JazzMan 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it! I SUBST'ed all the templates then manually removed the categories. (Here.) The downside is, of course, if we ever change the templates we'll also have to change that table. The other alternative is to add some sort of IF statement that reads if the template is being displayed in the Help namespace, and if so, it doesn't use the category. Actually, that might be a lot slicker, and it makes future-proofing the table a lot easier as well. JazzMan 16:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well it's been a couple weeks and nobody's said anything, so I just created it in Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates. JazzMan 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I like it being a help page. A few things. The help portal information is not present. Same with a breadcrumb (if any).
Instead of the subst I changed it to use the same formatting as the template pages. I also changed the descriptions to be pulled from the category pages (in case of change in both instances). Thoughts? The problem of the template pages being in categories (or more exactly the related help page now) is once again present with regard to the abandoned and candidates for deletion categories. We need to do something. Maybe subst for those? Or make them like the process for the other templates? Thoughts?
Also what about merge and imageneeded? Should they be included? With regard to that help page and this page. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 00:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea to pull the descriptions from the categories, I never thought of that. I don't know what's different about Abandoned and Deletion that's making them show up, so I don't know how to stop it. You could probably get around it by using the {{NAMESPACE}} and a well placed #if or #ifexpr function. I'd have to do some research/experimenting to figure out how to do it myself.
Merge should be added (I didn't know it existed when I made the table), but if we add imageneeded it needs to be standardized to the other templates... and we need to define when an image is actually needed. I don't think it's needed for everything, and adding images adds a whole new dimension to worrying about copyvios. If we don't have someone dedicated to making sure that all images are legit, we will have a wiki full of stuff stolen off the internet. JazzMan 01:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the removing templates follow the same principles as the reviewing templates. They no longer show their categories on Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates.
Imageneeded needs to be discussed. If it's layout get's changed it's placement on many pages will no longer work. Although, it could make more sense to have it on the top like the other templates. Thoughts? Uploaders are help responsible for the things they upload, D&D Wiki will just remove items as they learn of a copyright breach on a case-by-case basis.
If we add merge then we also need to make a category for it. Are there enough things for this, or is it rather localized? --Green Dragon 14:17, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

Abandoned pages[edit]

I think it would be worth adding a "These pages need adopting" link to a "How You Can Help" section on the front page. Interested users can then browse an annotated list (here) to see what takes their fancy. Marasmusine 06:16, 18 April 2012 (MDT)

I would include it as an aspect of the master plan, so we can see it before we decide on an action. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2012 (MDT)

Abandoned / Needsbalance / Deletions[edit]

GD, not sure why you reverted the alternative lists. Your comment was "non alphabetical", but the DPL list are in alphabetical order. They also provide the template's rationale, and (in the case of abandoned) the date it was tagged. This is very helpful for seeing which abandoned pages are over 1 year old, or which deletion proposals are over 2 weeks old. Please take another look: Abandoned, Needs Balance - I also want to link User:Badger/sandbox15. Any reason why we would link to the category instead? Marasmusine (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2012 (MDT)

I meant that the links on this page were no longer in alphabetical order, but I now see that you actually changed the links. I guess I should have paid more attention. To note though: those pages do need more information on them pertaining to how one should add the template (see the text on the category pages). I like the idea though. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2012 (MDT)
Ah, I see the misunderstanding now :) I'll improve the guidelines on those pages before adding them again. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2012 (MDT)

Homebrew Noticeability[edit]

The below voting options need to be completed. In addition, I think that we should scrap the last option. It just does not seem possible with all the lists, links, pages, etc and also moving all the pages and in addition it will make all the pages require a new search index which is not good. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2014 (MST)

Aye aye. I can check whether I can find means exist to do the last two options, but in terms of deciding images or templates for them, I've no idea. I think, technically, the last option would be possible to do, but not actually practical in any sense, I also confess no idea as to how it would impact on indexes. Unless anyone can come up with a methodically solid case for doing it all, by all means veto 'n scrap it. --SgtLion (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2014 (MST)
Made a template for the banner, if we choose to do that (here). We could also put something into the infobox templates for the homebrew stuff. Maybe the mug thumbnail and "This page is user generated." --Salasay Δ 20:25, 27 November 2014 (MST)
I have scrapped the last option. For option #2 the text "Home of user-generated, homebrew, pages!" works for me, and if someone wants to discuss this we can change it. I tried just adding the text to MediaWiki:Sidebar but that did not seem to work. Maybe you can experiment and figure out how to make this work. Would we just have to get rid of "navigation" and replace it with "Home of user-generated, homebrew, pages!"? --Green Dragon (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2014 (MST)
You can insert sort of insert <br />s into the Sidebar headings to sort of make a multi-line thing. There's no official mediawiki template magic for the sidebar, so to achieve anything beyond getting rid of 'navigation' and replacing it with poorly indented homebrew text, one would probably need fancy HTML tags. But mediawiki templates make HTML work strangely, so I can't figure a way to do it.--SgtLion (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2014 (MST)
You may have to ask Blue Dragon about this question to make it possible to vote on it. I have put the basic sidebar revision back, and nothing seems to change. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2014 (MST)
Oh Lawdy, I hadn't intended to leave the sidebar like that, my sincere apologies. I guess I'll add it to my Blue Dragon inquiries. --SgtLion (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2014 (MST)
Blue Dragon has added on the first message, so I guess that we can just cancel this vote and I hope that everyone accepts the outcome. Are there any concerns? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2014 (MST)

(0/0/0) NOT STARTED 14:50, 5 November 2014 (MST)

Further to the conversation at User_talk:Green_Dragon#Homebrew_Reputation, there are motions with the goal of increasing visibility of 'homebrew' status of homebrew articles. This will be a survey of D&D Wikians' views and support for these.
Below is a set of headers for given motions, if you support the approach in the header, add a signed line (not a reply) stating your support. Feel free to add new motions, but remember, if you add a voting option make sure that you have verified the method of making the changes.
This vote will not be binding; There are ruled out possibilities that will not be accepted, and a vote like this can't be perfect, just democratically speaking. --SgtLion (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2014 (MST)
Please note that Special:CheckUser will be used in case of voting fraud.


No Change - We would change nothing about the current system. No changin' logos, notices, nothin'.

Yes check.svg.png Ready to be voted on.

Sidebar/Banner Notice - We can add something to the sidebar like "Home of user-generated, homebrew, pages!" under the banner.

Yes check.svg.png Ready to be voted on.

Homebrew article-specific Notices - We could make any Homebrew articles display a banner or notice displaying the fact that the user is currently on a homebrew article.

No mark.svg.png To do: Describe the banner/notice in detail with a graphic (if that is what it will be), or a template.


DnD Links[edit]

So when it says, "The only external links which one may reference are those on DnD Links." does that mean we can't make references to content, or external links, from anywhere else? Because that seems hilariously draconian, counterproductive, counterintuitive, and completely unenforced. Am I misunderstanding? --Kydo (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2016 (MDT)

I'ts a rather outdated piece of policy, I think the purpose was to avoid people putting links to their own favoured site solely for advertising, making the wiki a free advertising home. So I assume we apply the policy discretionally to stop those sorts of cases. --SgtLion (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2016 (MDT)
I see... well it worries me, because the current state of the dungeon Mastering guide is one massive violation. It just makes no sense for me to watch the wisdom of DMs better than I and rephrase their words, when I could just let them speak for themselves. --Kydo (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2016 (MDT)
Haha, its actually meant to be read backwards in a way. E.g., if you want to link to something make sure to add it to this page first! What terminology do you recommend? --Green Dragon (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2016 (MDT)
OK then! For my first FA focus day, I'm planning on reviewing all of the pre-existing FAs, and making sure they're all up to standard. If I don't think it's possible to get them to that state, (I doubt there are any THAT bad) then I'll flag them for review. That sound good? Or has someone beat me to the punch? --Kydo (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2016 (MDT)
I would've hoped that any given FA was up to standard. Are they not? --SgtLion (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2016 (MDT)
After a quick viewing of them yesterday, no. Many are not. I believe some were made before certain standards were written, and were never updated to keep up. Others seem to have been nominated and voted in with complete disregard for the policies. The magazine pages, in particular, are major offenders. I think they should be removed from the list even! Instead, I'd like to see issue 0 and the main magazine pages improved up to standard. Issue 0 for its historic value, and the mag hub because honestly, for its function, it should be one of the best pages this wiki has to offer. --Kydo (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2016 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors