User talk:Admin/Archive 1

From D&D Wiki

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


Archive 1 |

Good idea GD?[edit]

Do you like this idea? I will add it to all the admin's talk pages if you agree? Or do you want it optional? --Sabre070 18:08, 8 November 2008 (MST)

I like the idea, but who has control of the user "Admin?" —Sledged (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2008 (MST)
At the moment I do, but I have sent the password to Green Dragon (on his gmail) so that he may change it. --Sabre070 21:39, 8 November 2008 (MST)
I have changed the password. Also, I wonder if instead of using a user page and a user talk page we could instead change it to something like the D&D Wiki:Administrators page (I would have to ask Blue Dragon to make it so one can MoI that page - seeing how it would not work right now because it is not in the user namespace). Thoughts on this? --Green Dragon 05:04, 9 November 2008 (MST)
I wanted to keep it short so that people don't have any excuse. --Sabre070 19:21, 9 November 2008 (MST)
Sound reasoning to me. —Sledged (talk | admin talk) 20:17, 9 November 2008 (MST)
I agree. --Green Dragon 07:19, 14 November 2008 (MST)

Sandbox[edit]

It's broken, it doesn't auto clean. --Sabre070 02:25, 9 November 2008 (MST)

It does not clean too often, however I am pretty sure it still cleans. Let me know of this is still an issue. --Green Dragon 04:52, 9 November 2008 (MST)
I asked Blue Dragon to take a look at it, and you were right, something was wrong. It should be running smoothly now. --Green Dragon 07:28, 14 November 2008 (MST)

Is Warforged OGC?[edit]

A user by the name of Hologram is making warforged, i believe they are not open game content. did wizards make ebberon Open game content? if not, i think something should be done about the article. just thought i should let you know. Summerscythe 14:47, 10 December 2008 (MST)

Fixed (deleted). PS: In future place your post before the 'div' and 'noinclude' tags, thanks. --Sabre070 14:54, 10 December 2008 (MST)

Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives[edit]

So, getting straight to it, the first things come directly from the Wizards website. They have a few old archives, the oldest of which being the Retired Articles and Archives. there is the notice attached to this archive, reading:

"Looking for a series that you used to read? We keep our retired series online for a time here. They won't stay here forever, though, so we recommend that you print out old series for yourself, as once they leave this area, they live only in memory. "

Most of the artcles within aren't of much interest or use to this wiki, but two of them have usable material in them; the Monster Mayhem article and the Spellbook article. They both have unique monsters and spells, respectively, that currently are not kept anywhere else. Of course, being part of the retired articles archive means they won't be there forever. I would like to preserve the entires in these articles on this site.

In case anyone is thinking, I don't think there are any real issues with doing so. These things are posted up on a free-access website for the world to see. And, as retired archives that won't be kept forever, they explicitly say to make your own copies if you wish to keep using them after removal. Copies that, theoretically, could be replicated and distibuted freely and indefinitely after the fact. In that sense, is there any difference between "printing" if you do it electronically rather than physically?

With an administrator approval consensus, I'd like to take the entries from these two articles and add them to the SRD of this site, of course with respect to their origins by either putting a note on the pages themselves or creating their own subsections.

Discuss/What say you? -- TheWarforgedArtificer 19:37, 4 June 2009 (MDT)

So long as they are OGL, I am in full support. Also, that old Psionics column wasn't bad; I think it was called Mind's Eye. Surgo 22:23, 4 June 2009 (MDT)
...does anyone else have anything to say about this? This project isn't going to go anywhere without more administrator input. TheWarforgedArtificer 18:18, 10 June 2009 (MDT)
What's wrong with one administrator giving you the go-ahead? If anyone has an issue with it, they can take it up with me. Surgo 19:21, 10 June 2009 (MDT)
Partially I wanted to see what all the other admins thought of it, but mostly I hoped someone would be able to reinforce of weaken whether my case of it being okay to transcribe the archives here. However, if you're saying "go for it", then I guess I will, after a few more details are worked out. TheWarforgedArtificer 11:13, 12 June 2009 (MDT)
I'd hold off on it. I emailed WotC via their customer support. It was submitted in their "copyright" category, so it would have immediately gone to the right place. When they received it, however, the first thing they did was escalate it to a higher level. I do believe that means that, instead of having a set answer, they're considering it. I'll let you know what they say, but in the meantime I'd say don't put it on the site. --Daniel Draco 12:08, 12 June 2009 (MDT)
Whoa, that sounds kinda heavy. I'm curious, what exactly did your message contain?
And it's probably too late for this, but one of the details I wanted to work out was getting the -whole- pages, mechanics plus flavor stuff (except for specific names, of course), on the same grounds as doing this in the first place; once they're gone, they're gone since they don't exist anywhere else, and I want to preserve them. Though, since as I've said it's probably already too late to ask for anything more, I won't complain if mechanics are all we get (if we get even that :/ ). TheWarforgedArtificer 23:08, 12 June 2009 (MDT)
"Escalating to a higher level" just means the person he emailed tossed it to their boss. At the very least, I'd suggest making sure you have all the pages saved. Dragon Child 23:10, 12 June 2009 (MDT)
We would have to make an entire new section. Something like "Wizards Articles". Are you really interested in doing this or do you think it would be too much work or who knows what? --Green Dragon 00:42, 13 July 2009 (MDT)
Why would we need a new section? Just have a little header on the top, something like "This article was originally published by Wizards of the Coast under their (Insert Name Here) section", kind of like what's done with some Tome articles. Surgo 09:44, 13 July 2009 (MDT)
I was thinking a new section would have to be made, but I don't have enough experience working with this site to do that. I'd need someone else to do that, but I'm confident I can get all the actual pages myself once a section's created.
Besides, this is -nothing- compared to another project I have in mind when this is over... why do you think this is only "Project #1"? >:]
Hey, what the heck? Who changed that? Fixing...Done. --TheWarforgedArtificer 12:23, 13 July 2009 (MDT)
I would be more then willing to help create the infrastructure of a Wizards archive like section and help out a bit however do you know what the license is on the Wizards archives? I looked though Wizards Wizards.com & Gleemax.com Website Terms of Use a bit and Wizards web site privacy statement however I did not see anything relating to their archive section. --Green Dragon 15:32, 13 July 2009 (MDT)
Daniel Draco and I (well, pretty much just Daniel Draco) have been working on that particular detail this whole time, by e-mailing Wizards. Right now we've been stalled on a reply. When Daniel knows, we'll know. --TheWarforgedArtificer 15:46, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Damn it all, wizards responded to Draco and said no. That's projects #1, 2, and 4 down the drain. However, an unrelated project that I am absolutely sure will work can now get underway. I'll post details later so we can get started.
In any case Main Page3.5e Open Game ContentTranscribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives. Their you go. --Green Dragon 15:49, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
One, that wasn't a malicious edit (as it was all my own stuff originally), but if you have not yet realized, Wizards. Said. No. We cannot have their archives. You must take down that page, as I have said here, or they will very likely sue you! But hey, if you want to have them file a lawsuit against you, that's fine by me... --TheWarforgedArtificer 16:06, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
You are talking about a whole different subject. I am referring to content which we are legally allowed to have (not copyrighted things). See also Talk:Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives. --Green Dragon 23:01, 3 November 2009 (MST)
This had no future, and has been deleted. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (MDT)

Propositions for Addition/Expansion of this Wiki[edit]

(making a new section here is how someone suggested I should do this)

So, I'm fairly new to this site, but I've got a few (official, not homebrew) things I'd like to see added, if possible. There a number of such things, but I'm only going to go one at a time, and I'm putting them up here for administrator discussion.

Project #2[edit]

Alright. The project that was planned for #3 is now #2. This project is not about articles from Wizards sites. This project is for copying down OG content from a sourcebook. And it is under the OGL, it states that and even has a specific license in the back of the book. If I get started on this project, a word-for-word copy of the specific OGL will be the first thing I put up.

Now, the book itself. And, don't freak out or anything when you read the title, let me explain first. The book is "World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game". Yes. It's Warcraft. But hear this first. I don't really care for the Warcraft setting. I've never played WoW or the original Warcraft games (Starcraft for the win :P ). The -only- reason I want to copy down this content is for one thing; the Tinker base class and the rules for creating steampunk Technological Devices. Seriously, it's all freakin' awesome :3 That's the only reason I'm interested. Now, with that said, the book also has a number of other new rules, all of which are completely compatible with existing D&D rules. New feats and feat types, new takes on a few base classes, of course the rules for Technological Devices and Firearms (best I've seen them handled yet), even rules for making statistics of communities and cities, and more. All these things can make fine additions to DanDwiki. Just like Unearthed Arcana and all the new rules it brought about.

Now, of course, due to the nature of the OGL, only rules and mechanics can be posted, none of the actual flavor (which is perfectly fine with me). If there are no other suggestions, I will probably follow a format similar to the one we have for the actual SRD, because this book is also laid out in a similar way. As for the actual copying down, I will be attempting to do so word-for-word wherever possible (minus the flavor-only sections which won't be copied at all, of course), but in some cases I will have to paraphrase to omit flavor and setting references. I will leave a note on each page where this happens. Also, a good amound of the content is identical to stuff already in the SRD, as it works like a "replacement" Player's Handbook and DMG; in these cases, I will simply link to the existing SRD. In some cases, the name is the only thing different. In this case, I will make a redirect to the SRD. But for anything new or different, I will make the new page for.

To get started, all I will need is a new section to do so, and a new page identified (homebrew and regular stuff has "article" as the tab, SRD pages are "srd", Unearthed stuff is "ua", discussions are "discussion", etc. For the new section, it can just be "Warcraft" or "World of Warcraft", and that can be put in the navigation box under UA, and the pages can be "wrd", for "Warcraft Reference Document".

So. What does everyone think?

What is the rational for putting certain material separate from similar material, albeit for a different setting? --Green Dragon (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (MDT)

SRD weapons & armor error?[edit]

There appears to be a problem with sevearl SRD weapons and armor pages, particularity in the enchantment area. An example would be the Morningstar. [1] Is there anyway to fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.22.233.36 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

The wiki's having problems right now. Rest assured that the coding on those pages is fine, it's just that the back end stuff that supports that coding is currently out of order. JazzMan 16:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken Redirects Oddity[edit]

You guys have any way to fix this? Over at Special:BrokenRedirects it is listing "Humans, Æskmann (DnD Race)" and "Form:4e Class Power" as the only two broken redirects, but neither actually exist.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:15, 9 June 2011 (MDT)

Fixed one (partially). See also Talk:3.5e Flaws#Flaw Form. --Green Dragon 15:46, 9 June 2011 (MDT)
That odd one might be fixed now. — Blue Dragon (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (MDT)

DnD Links[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:DnD Links#Social Networking. --Green Dragon 16:38, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

Site nominated for an Award[edit]

Accidentally Locked a page[edit]

Hi Admins I wanted to add a feat I found in the Complete Warrior and I also wanted it to look right on the page so I borrowed some code from Shield Bash but after I uploaded it I can no longer edit it because I don't have the necessary clearance. Could you undo my last two updates to the Shield Slam(3.5e Feat)? Thanks before hand --ElvenKingSlave · Weapons Summoner · Talk 11:54, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Was this related to cloudflare perchance? --Green Dragon 13:33, 9 January 2012 (MST)

Please delete my rubbish.[edit]

Please can an admin please delete my page Rebelstar (4e Campaign Setting) and its subpages? I won't be developing it any further. Thank-you. I've also noticed a backlog at Category:Candidates for Deletion. If more hands are needed, I might nominate myself for adminship :) Marasmusine 04:55, 17 December 2011 (MST)

Per our policy I can't delete it outright, but I have added the {{delete}} template; next time someone goes through the category for deletion it will likely be deleted. As for admin, feel free to nominate yourself officially, though (and I mean no offense) since you have not made many edits. Stick around and you never know; there is waaaaay more work around here than we have workers. JazzMan 17:54, 26 December 2011 (MST)
Thanks! Marasmusine 01:47, 28 December 2011 (MST)

4e types and subtypes[edit]

I've noticed something confusing about our categorization system for 4e races. What we are calling "Subtype" is actually "Type", and what we are calling "Type" is actually "Origin" (see Monster Manual p. 6). For example, it should be "Humanoid Type" and "Natural Origin", not "Natural Type" and "Humanoid Subtype". I've also seen pages with keywords ("undead" etc) used as subtypes. It will be a pain changing the categories on all the 4e race articles, but I'm prepared to put the work in if the admins give me the go-ahead. Marasmusine 04:12, 7 January 2012 (MST)

That would be very appreciated if you corrected the categories for races. Creatures are also in the same boat. When you are organizing the category please add Category:4e to the 4e types as well as add it to the new origin categories. --Green Dragon 17:03, 7 January 2012 (MST)
Do we want categories like Category:Humanoid Type which has mixed 3e and 4e content? I was thinking of separating them ("Category: Humanoid 4e Type"), particularly to avoid the above confusion where Beast is a 3e Subtype but a 4e Type. Marasmusine 14:14, 8 January 2012 (MST)
I understand that they are not the same thing, however I feel that just having Category:4e added is sufficient. The pages in the category will have their appropriate identifier and that as well as having the category be a part of the 4e category tree should work. If one wants just the 4e pages they can make a dpl. Also none of the other categories have been edition specific (for example Category:Race). --Green Dragon 14:40, 8 January 2012 (MST)
Okay, thanks, I'll get to work on that. Marasmusine 02:34, 9 January 2012 (MST)

Racial Feats[edit]

Hello. Me again :)

I wanted to find a better way of presenting racial feats on the main race article, so that readers can get a better overview of what the feats do. I did some script-kiddying and tried some code from 4e Racial Feats and applied it to Barbed Devil (4e Race). (To get this to work, I added a "Barbed Devil Feat" category to the feat pages... perhaps there's a different way?). I just want to make sure that this isn't going to blow the wiki up or cause some other problem. Thanks, Marasmusine 12:03, 12 January 2012 (MST)

Nah, it should be fine. I only *just* understand the DPL code, so I always copy/paste it from somewhere else as well. And as far as I know, there'd be no way to do it without creating a category; this way is MUCH cleaner (and more accurate) than going around trying to manually add all the feats. JazzMan 18:08, 15 January 2012 (MST)
I made Category:Weapon Summoner Bonus Feat so it can have a feat list like the fighter. I find that this is a good way to go. --Green Dragon 12:00, 19 January 2012 (MST)

4e Race Vizison[edit]

I finished adding a new race Vizison (4e Race) about 5 days ago,and I keep wondering «are they too powerful? Timecontrol is pretty epic. Nah I put huge penalties to them if they fail to meet the Arcana. I keep wondering through. Could one of you guys review it and tell me what you think? --Viziton 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at it. For future reference please use {{requestreview}} to get something reviewed. --Green Dragon 10:35, 1 February 2012 (MST)

What does it take?[edit]

I'm hoping sooner or later,that I would become a major contributer, but I don't know what it would take, maybe a thousand contributions and being well known and trusted? I don't want to be an admin. I also thought maybe this should be a Title, and it should be earned the same way adminship--Viziton

Technically it takes nothing to become an admin. See also Requests for Adminship. I would recommend having an understanding of syntax, showing commitment, and showing dedication. --Green Dragon 11:10, 10 February 2012 (MST)

that seems to me to make good sense,thanks :] --Viziton 12:39, 11 February 2012 (MST)

Think quality, not quantity :) Marasmusine 13:39, 11 February 2012 (MST)

I'm aware that got about 5 to 8 things in progress at the momment,I'm just putting in my basic things.--Viziton 18:23, 11 February 2012 (MST)

Death Knight class radically altered?[edit]

Death Knight (3.5e Class) Had a goodly portion of its text hacked out and the abilities and class features table broken and altered. I'm not sure what the policy is on doing that sort of thing. But the alterations seem to make it a totally different class, and I was kind of using the Jan 21 version (with my score votes on it) in a game.

So how is something like this usually handled? --VK 10:51, 24 February 2012 (MST)

There's no "official" policy, but my unofficial view is this: if someone makes changes radical enough to be called a variant, without discussing them on the talk page, you are safe to revert the changes. Make a thoughtful comment as to why you reverted so that it does not turn into a revert war. If the other person wants to make a variant class with their changes, I see no reason why they can't copy/paste the historical page which held their version. If there's any conflict (sometimes egos can be bruised when working on someone else's work) feel free to ask a neutral third party to intervene. That's how I'd go about doing it. JazzMan 15:31, 24 February 2012 (MST)
Alrighty! I'll do that then, thanks! --VK 12:26, 27 February 2012 (MST)

Welcome Message[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:Welcome Message#Organization. --Green Dragon 15:31, 13 March 2012 (MDT)

Class name change[edit]

If possible could I have a class I recreated changed to a new name or should I just create the new class then nominate the old one for deletion? Tivanir 08:42, 17 March 2012 (MDT)

Let me know what you want renamed and I can sort it out for you. Marasmusine 10:58, 17 March 2012 (MDT)
Thaumaturgical Artisan to Artificer (3.5e Class) if possible. Tivanir 12:42, 17 March 2012 (MDT)
If you go to the page you want moved and click the "move" tab on top you will be able to move the page. --Green Dragon 14:23, 17 March 2012 (MDT)
/facepalm why that would do it. Tivanir 14:28, 17 March 2012 (MDT)

Need some deletion thingies removed[edit]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Warriors_with_Style#The_Failure_of_Feats

There are several "marked for deletion" boxes on that page by someone who clearly hasn't had any experiences with Tome-style feats before.

It looks like commentary meant for a discussion or talk page rather than tossing around deletion requests willy-nilly. VK 04:49, 10 April 2012 (MDT)

The feat articles aren't locked so you are free to remove the deletion templates and make the appropriate rationale on their talk pages. Marasmusine 05:18, 10 April 2012 (MDT)

Feats Page[edit]

The page 3.5e Feats is extremely badly organized. There are 82 different categories and/or subcategories, and it is impossible to navigate. I think that it would be much better if it were organized differently, because it would be easier to find the rightcategory and/or subcategory for a given feat. I suggest we reduce the different categories and/or subcategories down to the ones that are in the SRD page, and maybe a few extra, like 'Other' or 'Tactical'.

Also, lock the page to keep people from adding their own random catagories --Salasay Δ 10:50, 15 June 2012 (MDT)

Hrm, I agree, but then I don't. On the one hand, there are a ton of categories. But on the other hand, if you have an assassin, and you want feats that work with the class feature, it should be easy to find them. On the other, other, other hand, even the way it is organized is inconsistent: we have Magic Feats under the Class Feats category, then under Feats by Requirement, we have Magical Feats, which is then again broken down into Arcane/Metamagic/Necromantic/Reserve... but no Divine.
So I think yes, it should be reworked, but probably not as simple as it is in the SRD. And when it's done, definitely lock the page. I won't do it now, in case I'm not around when someone starts the project. JazzMan 13:01, 15 June 2012 (MDT)
Perhaps have a 'Class Feats' section, and when you go to that page, it will have a list of the classes that have class feats made for them (in other words, let people edit the 'Class Feats' page, and let them add class feats that way.) --Salasay Δ 07:44, 9 July 2012 (MDT)
How would you improve the current layout? What are your thoughts? Do you just mean that the class feats should be accessed with a page with the class feat list options? Are you talking about any changes in the preload, way or organizing the pages, etc? There may be some confusion on the pages with which organization is meant, since multiple iterations of their layout are in use, and if you need help here just ask what is intended (and if you are talking about correcting this problem let that be known too). --Green Dragon (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2012 (MDT)
Here is an idea: 3.5e Feats--Salasay Δ 10:21, 12 July 2012 (MDT)
I think we need to replace the current format with either the above one or another suggested format.--Salasay Δ 14:16, 11 August 2012 (MDT)
What would be done with the rest of the feat categories? Would they be hidden? We could replace the bold links with a hide/show page that has the bold links inherently shown. I just don't see how we can get rid of all the feat categories. If you have another solution that you would be willing to explore by all means please let it be known. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2012 (MDT)
We would have to get ride of a few of the existing (and extraneous, in a few cases) categories/subcategories and integrate them into other categories. For example, take the categories Armor Feats , Attack of Opportunity Feats, and Ranged Attack Feats. On the SRD page, feats that fulfill those functions exist, but they don't warrant a special category all for themselves, and are simply put in the General Feats category. So those examples would be integrated into the General Feats category. Also, the way the FBFs (Fighter Bonus Feats) are categorized should change. Say I want to make the Elven Racial Feat 'Pansy Power' and have it be an FBF. I would create a feat called 'Pansy Power', and make it as normal. However, when I fill out the 'types' section, I would put 'Fighter' in addition to 'Racial'. The feat name would still be 'Pansy Power [Racial]', but when I go to the FBF page, Pansy Power would be there. If you want, i could create a page detailing what i want to do with each individual category/subcategory, based on the updated Suggested Feats Page, and the categories/subcategories it has.--Salasay Δ 09:06, 1 September 2012 (MDT)
I have started integrating the current Homebrew Feats into my Suggested Feats Page. I will try and make it have every feat, but i do not understand some of the wikitext required to add feats as they are created, so if someone could give me a template or something, it would be much appreciated. Right now, I am using the #ask function, which seems to not be the ideal code. --Salasay Δ 20:27, 13 December 2012 (MST)
I am finished with the Suggested Feats Page. All that there is left to do is to touch up the formatting a little bit. Every feat that is on the original 3.5e Feats page has been accounted for. I used some of the original pages, instead of designing new ones. If you think it might be necessary to design new pages (some of the original pages don't automatically update when a new feat is added), I can go in and fix it. These are all of the original pages I'm using: Variant Feats, Archetype Feats, The Gift Feats, Wild Feats, Item Creation Feats, and Netbook of Feats. Once the page has been edited to our satisfaction, we can just copy and paste the content of my page into the 3.5e Feats page and lock it. --Salasay Δ 03:56, 19 December 2012 (MST)
I find that is it much more understandable like that. Go ahead and switch 3.5e Feats. Please, though, remove the "All" list of feats and just add that on a separate page. Please, however, add an "other" page for the feats which do not fit into any of the other categories so they can also be accessed and dealt with appropriately. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (MST)
Added a separate "All" page. I had an "Other" page, called Miscellaneous, but it did not update itself; i just had all of the categories that i couldn't find a home for in it. I upgraded it to automatically add random categories people might make, and found that there are a ton of feats that weren't categorized properly. I used a <DPL> and notcategory= to exempt categories that have a page. However, there are a few pages i couldn't exempt: Racial Feats, Class Feats, and The Gift Feats. I need someone who knows how to fix them to help me. I have asked Dmilewski to help me proofread, and i would like to hold back actually changing the homebrew page until we are sure there are no serious errors in my coding or anything like that. --Salasay Δ 12:00, 15 January 2013 (MST)
I implemented it. Now, the unused feat pages need to have {{delete}} added. Those which can be added to pages like 3.5e Optional Rule Feats should be linked to there and not queued for deletion. --Green Dragon (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2013 (MST)
The Racial feats and Class feats need to have a standardized category added to all of them, so one feat might have [[Category:Ranger Feat]] now, and we would add [[Category:Class Feat]] as well. That way we can exempt it from the Miscellaneous page more easily. Is there a way to do that with a bot, or do we have to go in and edit all of the individual feats and add the Category? --Salasay Δ 03:28, 16 January 2013 (MST)
Started adding Category:Racial Feat and Category:Class Feat to the feats that need it by hand. That should help streamline the Misc. page a little bit. I will also sort through Misc. page for uncategorized feats.--Salasay Δ 12:59, 17 January 2013 (MST)
Finished. All of the Feats in the Misc. page should be properly categorized, and none of the feats on the Racial and Class Feats pages should show up on the Misc. page. They should also all have [[Category:Class Feat]] or [[Category:Racial Feat]] on them now. If there is anything else like that that you want/need me to do, I would be happy to give it a shot. All 503 edits required were not as bad I had thought they would be :) --Salasay Δ 17:45, 17 January 2013 (MST)
Also, the homepage for all of the feats needs to be locked so that only admins can edit it to add categories; that way people won't add the page for their class' feats to the homepage because they feel important. That is probably how the original page ended up how it was.--Salasay Δ 10:39, 16 January 2013 (MST)
Going to tag the 'Suggested Hombrew Feats page' for deletion since we don't need it anymore. any objections?--Salasay Δ 03:33, 16 January 2013 (MST)

Image Style Guide[edit]

Do we default to the Wikipedia Manual of Style with regards image placement? (link). Marasmusine (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2013 (MST)


Report A Page[edit]

I couldn't find any official way to report a page, so I am throwing it here. There is a class under the 4e homebrew that I believe should be removed. The class is Girl Raper. It is crude and is not remotely even an attempt at a class. Dragonfire (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2013 (MDT)

I agree. It's gone, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2013 (MDT)
For future reference please use {{delete}} and {{needsadmin}}. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (MDT)

Category Creation[edit]

some of the pages I have created did not fit the categories present, or might've fit categories that were not present. I created new categories that now include these. if this is not allowed, I'm sorry. please display that and a page for all other wikirules on the main page from now on.

the new categories I have created need to be filled. I ask you to search existing pages for anything that might fit in these categories:

Category: templates

Category: Weapons Templates

Category: outfit Templates

Category: weapons

Category titles are singular. We already have Category:Template and Category:Weapon. I'm not sure what a "weapon template" or an "outfit template" is. Marasmusine (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (MDT)

Consideration[edit]

Thinking of making a Races of War template (Tome of Battle for the old school folks) so that people know certain things are suppose to be balanced against radical changed instead of regular changes. The reason I want to toss it out there is so that people don't get the wrong idea about power levels (most of the RoW stuff is pretty balanced against itself though anything else it is like comparing a 22 against a howitzer.) Would this be something useful? Tivanir (Speak to me) (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2013 (MDT)

It sounds necessary. Marasmusine (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2013 (MDT)
Mostly I want to do it for two reasons; 1. if the thing is templated people know it isn't standard 3.5e 2. If it is templated people know it isn't balanced against standard 3.5e as well. I think it would cut down on the repeatitive this isn't balanced comments. Tivanir (Speak to me) (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2013 (MDT)
If anything it would then be added as its own game system, not on Meta Pages or other administrative pages. These pages are pages about (root: meta) pages, and provide no static-type page content. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2013 (MDT)
They can also have Template:Design Disclaimer added, or be a supplement page under a variant rule. If they are not, they will be mediated on, and there is nothing to stop this process except the above options with sufficient options. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors