User talk:Green Dragon

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
   
User talk:Green Dragon
User
Talk
I welcome discussions! Although before contacting me see if your question is not dealt with on Meta Pages.
Contributions
Among other things, I am looking for Featured Articles, and I want your contributions to support this process!
Awards
Archive
Archives

Pantheon, Featured Article Concerns[edit]

I know it has been a while, but I felt I should notify you that the concerns you had explicitly mentioned on Talk:Pantheon_of_Tirr_(Tirr_Supplement) have been addressed. Please notify me on that page or on my talk page of any additional concerns you may have. Jwguy (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2015 (MST)

I'll look over all the revisions soon and see how it is. Thanks for letting me know! --Green Dragon (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2015 (MST)

Done 'n cool Homebrew Article Template?[edit]

I'm sure I'm not original in this idea, but I'm sure you can shoot it down if it's unreasonable. In a similar vein to the homebrew notice things thread above, I get the feeling one of the biggest gripes of users of this wiki is that it's hard to find homebrew articles that can reliably be used in their campaign, and not be unexpectedly unbalanced/not fun/ccccraaazy.

I was wondering what your thoughts would be on a {{totallycool}} template, just a small notice saying "This article is complete, and likely to be suitable for standard campaigns of this setting", obviously nothing like those words, but you get the spirit of the idea. Far be it from me to encourage an elitist attitude, but some sort of recognition for good articles that are below the Featured Article candidates, but definitely worthy of attention to people trying to find worthy stuff to put in their campaign seems like it wouldn't go amiss in this sea of content. Swishy. --SgtLion (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (MST)

I agree. Maybe make the adding of the template something that only an admin can do, or something. --Salasay Δ 19:00, 28 January 2015 (MST)
Something comparable to {{April Fools}} but for articles which are great to add to one's campaign? A better name than " {{totallycool}}" would be {{recommendedpage}}. This could work just fine as a user-reviewing process. I don't think that it should be an admin-only derived list, however. We could also add something along the lines of "recommend by: USERNAME" also into the final list. This would be good so that if a certain user finds that another user finds interesting pages that compliment their own campaign well, they can find that more easily. I would go ahead and make {{recommendedpage}} and then it can be added to Meta Pages as appropriate, if there are enough users willing to start adding recommended pages right away. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2015 (MST)
Well I mean sure, if you're into meaningful wording, I guess. That's cool stuff, I agree with GD's take on things. Thing is, I don't think there wouldn't really be any way to like,create a list of pages recommended by a certain user, right? At least not with any wiki magic I know of. --SgtLion (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (MST)
I think that it is possible. If you have a sortable dpl then you should be able to sort the information at least vaguely. If someone uses "--" before some of the templates, and others they do not then it may not work so well. If users keep it the same, however, then it should carry through and work just fine. I don't know if this is a neccssary aspect of this template though. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2015 (MST)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for updating all the 4e racial feat list templates! Marasmusine (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (MST)

No problem! Updating all the races and making sure they use the updated preload is still a major task, but I hope that that will help the races too. Also, do you know why Template:Design Disclaimer still shows a {{{2}}} even though it is an #if function? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2015 (MST)
Solved that {{{2}}} issue, by the way~ -SgtLion (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2015 (MDT)
Good catch. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2015 (MDT)

Regarding a recent IP ban[edit]

Hello Green Dragon,

I was recently contacted via email regarding the following:

Hello J. Wright,

I've recently had my IP address blocked, and can't seem to get a hold of Green Dragon. I figured out why it was banned after speaking to my son, he tried to make a new page and having failed he tried editing pages. Feeling he was doing good, he decided to overwrite an existing class to get his made, and felt it was a good change. It was changed back the next day, and he was very angry about this and erased all the class information and saved the page.

I just found out this morning, I am starting to DM again, which I haven't done in almost 7 years. I broke out my books, my minis, and my customized board, and my friend told me I should make a account on the wiki and read up before diving back in, so I tried. My son is 14 and plays in a small group with my neighbors and wanted to make his own class, which I can understand. Though the class he made has no balance, it's op and beyond, friggin munchkin. I have blocked his ability to access the site, I know it harsh to be out the reference material for a player but after what he did I don't see any other choice, his DM agreed.

I would very much like it if my IP address could be unblocked, but I understand if this decision stands, after all the wiki can not afford to have people damaging other peoples' works. Even though it wasn't I, it still came outta my house. Please, if you could talk it over with Green Dragon for me and let me know either way. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Halo M.

I looked into the issue and determined that this happened fairly recently, and was due to an edit of the Deadly Blade (3.5e Class) page, and the blocked IP was 96.39.187.48, and the block ID is #2989. It would appear you implemented the block, so I wanted to seek your perspective on this rather than act unilaterally. Jwguy (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2015 (MST)

That IP was blocked since it ended up blanking the page after I had reverted the edit. In addition the edits to Deadly Blade (3.5e Class) made the class into some Sparten-esque class, but it removed most of the page. The class had thus also become a feat-build type class without even linking to the feats or displaying the correct formatting for such a class. Although the Swordfighter (3.5e Class) was better, I was worried that it would also degrade into a feat-based class (its hard to make that one worse though). I will unban the IP if you trust the IP, and we can further see if his edits are made with good intentions. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2015 (MST)
We'll see. I was just asked to speak to you about it. I'll relay your decision back to them. Thank you for your time. =) Jwguy (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2015 (MST)

Making a new template?[edit]

Are regular users allowed to make new templates? I want to use a template I made for d20 Modern explosives and splash weapons. The regular weapons template does cut it for these types of weapons and it'd be easier to use a template than a regular table because those things can get long and hard to read and I have like dozens of explosives/splash weapons to make.

And while on the subject, I'd like to make a variant of the standard d20 Modern weapons template that changes "Purchase DC" to "Price" and "Restriction" to "Scarcity" but again, I am not sure if regular users are allowed to make templates. --GamerAim (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2015 (MDT)

Of course! If the template can be applied to a certain preload then that would be even better. Immersing yourself more into the possibilities of d20 Modern is not something that we frown upon! I look forward to the template, and let me know if you know of a good preload that can use the template. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2015 (MDT)
Per your suggestion, I integrated the template into the d20 Modern Equipment preload because I misremembered your reply and thought you gave me permission ahead of time to do so. If not, I apologize. Go ahead and check it and if it's not fine, I won't hold it personally if you undo my edit. Anyway, if it's good, then thanks for the suggestion and permission! --GamerAim (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2015 (MDT)

Editcount[edit]

Good afternoon, oh most emerald one. I'm wondering what my edit count is? (There doesn't seem to be a Special:Editcount.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2015 (MDT)

You can now find this information under "preferences → User profile → Number of edits:". Hope this helps! --Green Dragon (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2015 (MDT)
Thanks! (So I have over 20,000, feels like a million.) Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (MDT)

Vandalism[edit]

The IP 50.175.5.162 just recently blanked the Boneshaper and the Black Flame Evocator pages randomly. I already reverted the edits, I'd just like to bring it to your attention. --Salasay Δ 08:34, 10 June 2015 (MDT)

And he just blanked Boneshaper again--Salasay Δ 20:07, 10 June 2015 (MDT)
I've blocked the IP for vandalism. <3 --SgtLion (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2015 (MDT)

Paizo Community Permissions[edit]

G'd eve, GD. Marasmusine was schoolin' me on OGL licensing in terms of Pathfinder content earlier, got me thinkin'.

Though there's no immediate requirements, and it'd be best we have the actual OGL material done and structured properly first - I was lookin' at Paizo's Community Use Terms. Is it plausible that we could eventually sign up to this? My main concern is how I should currently be structuring our PFSRD articles and templates, as their images are not under OGL licensing, it'd be easier to plan, knowing if we might eventually have images in the articles. --SgtLion (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2015 (MDT)

I don't think that we want to deal with changing licensing, and I think that our current structure is just fine. If there is a page, or even all Pathfinder pages that should be under a different license or terms of use then we can make that work. Images, of course, can be under a license that is supported in a MMC (Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Website) website format already. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2015 (MDT)
It wouldn't teeechnically be changing licensing, but sure that's fine. Paizo's images are only available under that agreement, so I don't think there are other options for the PFSRD specifically. Now I don't have to add in image support, whee~ --SgtLion (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2015 (MDT)

Stickin' Pathfinder homebrew on sidebar[edit]

Hi Greenie, you must be getting sick of me bringing up pathfinder everywhere by now. Pathfinder Homebrew is basically in a state for people to start contributing to some level - I've been actively working on the pages/preloads for a while now. I came to pitch the idea of stickin' it, and maybe PFSRD on the sidebar, though I'm fully aware that neither are done yet. I won't be expecting a giant influx like our 5e stuff, so it won't even be much pressure, it'd just be nice to open the floor, 'specially as Pathfinder things like creatures tend to be more neatly formatted, I'm naively dreaming it won't be much work to neaten new stuff up. Yes/No/Thoughts/etc? (Plus then I can access them to work on 'em easier :3) --SgtLion (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2015 (MDT)

Does the sidebar suite you now? I don't know if it should go below 3.5e, but since it was released later I think that it is okay where it is. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2015 (MDT)
That's beautiful, thank you. It might be worth considering splitting that list into homebrew/OGL things sometime, or I guess if we end up getting any more OGL content. <3 --SgtLion (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2015 (MDT)
Don't you just love seeing your baby grow up and go off to a good sidebar?--Salasay Δ 19:56, 8 September 2015 (MDT)
I fear for it's safety out in the sidebar world, but I must stay strong ;( They grow up so fast. --SgtLion (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2015 (MDT)
I am a little worried since both of the Pathfinder lists have few pages, but I justify it when I see the 2.5e option there too (there are probably more people looking for Pathfinder even though 2.5e has more pages as of now). I hope that people will improve the Pathfinder lists too so that it is more useable and easier to add Pathfinder pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2015 (MDT)

Ability Score Increases[edit]

I'm struggling to find a definitive answer to this, so I was wondering if Race Traits that effect Ability scores were counted as a +(number) to the roll number (For example, 17) or the Modifier number (For example +3). Thanks for the assistance.

Roll number. For example (3.5), an Elf who rolls a 14 (+2 modifier) for Dex and a 12 (+1 modifier) for Con is instead given a 16 (+3) Dex and 10 (+0) Con. --Salasay Δ 17:48, 21 October 2015 (MDT)

Magazine format[edit]

Hi GD, I need your feedback before I can continue with the magazine. You said you wanted links to page histories, this is what it looks like: http://1drv.ms/1Q7p0kw (not the trinkets, but everything below that), is this how you want it? Marasmusine (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2015 (MST)

I find that very intrusive. I think that it is better at the back with just a shortened http link saying "page history". I don't think that it is nice how you currently have the layout. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2015 (MST)
I don't like it either, I just wasn't sure where you wanted the links. When you say "at the back", you mean in an index (like the author index I had before?) Marasmusine (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2015 (MST)
Okay, having the history links in the index will significantly increase the time it will take to edit the magazine. Word doesn't transfer hyperlinks from marked entries to the index, so I will have to do this manually, and I will have to do this each time I rebuild the index :/ Marasmusine (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2015 (MST)
Yes, I meant moving the links to the index. Since you cannot shorten a link in word it is probably better to just include the whole link with the author's names in the index together. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2015 (MST)
Oh, I can shorten the link okay. How it worked in issue 1 and 2 is that as I added the content, I can "mark" each heading with some text (in this case, the authors names), and tell Word to build an index from that. I've found that if I include hyperlinks (shortened or not) in the mark, it just becomes plaintext in the index. The only thing I can do is add the links manually as the very last thing I do before publishing ... but if anything gets added or changes page number, I have to rebuild the index, and all the links have to be added manually again.
Leave it with me though and I'll figure something out! Marasmusine (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2015 (MST)

Unexpected Absence[edit]

GD I will be away for a while where at best my internet connection will be spotty at best. I have no time line on when I will return as of yet. I would like you to suspend my administrator permissions for the time being, so I won't have to worry about someone possibly getting into my account and doing something stupid. While it is unlikely in these cases I like to be overly cautious. Tivanir (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2015 (MST)

Okay, no problem I have changed your user group. Just let me know when you are back to make some edits. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2015 (MST)
I have returned from my medical abscence. Tivanir (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (MST)
I have added back your user rights. Thanks for letting me know! --Green Dragon (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2016 (MST)

Domains in Deity Stat Blocks[edit]

Hey, was just perusing some deities and discovered that the domains are not showing up in the visible stat blocks. Not sure how to fix that. --Calidore Chase (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2015 (MST)

I can take a look, too. Which ones were you concerned with? Jwguy (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2015 (MST)
Any deity that uses the preset form for deities. Such as Alinia (3.5e Deity) - if you edit the item and look in the form you will see a line labeled Dom and information in that line does not appear in the displayed page. --Calidore Chase (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (MST)
A user, Shadowpriest, seemed to have edited the Deity template. I have rolled back his edits. Should we protect that template? --Jwguy (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2015 (MST)
Doubt it will be an issue in the future. Glad it is working again. THanks for lookinginto that! --Calidore Chase (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2015 (MST)

Demon Lord and Archdevil Deletion[edit]

I would ask that you please reconsider adding the Demon Lord and Archdevil sections. They should have their own section because they do not fit in any other section. Both the Book of Vile Darkness and the Fiendish Codex (1 & 2) state that like Hero, or Quasi, deities, Demon Lords/Archdevils are not true deities and thus, cannot be labeled as demigods. But, they are not quasi deities either. What separates them from quasi deities, is that they have the ability to grant divine Domain Powers to their worshipers, making them more powerful than quasi deities but weaker than demigods. They have their own label because they need one, otherwise they would have been labeled as gods who live in the Abyss of the Nine Hells, rather than demon lords and archdevils. To further my point, the Libris Mortis and Serpent Kingdoms has Orcus, the Demon Lord of Undeath, and Sess'innek, the Demon lord of Serpents, listed in the deity sections of their respective books as Demon Lords, not a demigods or a quasi deities. Given this information, I seriously hope you reconsider the deletion of the Demon Lord/Archdevil sections. Please & thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Shadow Priest (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2016 (MST)

I have restored these pages. Is it okay if we first test it out on 3.5e Rules to see how many deities get added to these sections? If there is enough then adding a link on 3.5e Deities to them would make lots of sense of course. Do you know how to make it work with 3.5e Rules? --Green Dragon (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2016 (MST)

Request for assistance.[edit]

Hello, Green Dragon. I seem to have somehow accidentally logged myself out of the site before saving two edits. Tactical Commander (3.5e Feat) & Strategic Commander (3.5e Feat) Now my IP address is visible. Is there some way you could remove that from public sight? I seem to recall this happened once before. Sorry for the trouble. --Sir Dinadan (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2016 (MST)

I hope that the pages are fine for you now. Let me know if you run into more troubles. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2016 (MST)
Thank you, Green Dragon. Much appreciated. --Sir Dinadan (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2016 (MST)

LotR Setting[edit]

Hi, some time ago you restored Shelob, LotR (3.5e NPC) after I deleted it during a removal of the abandoned LotR setting. The reason I deleted it is that it was a copy of SRD:Colossal Monstrous Spider with the HD bumped up. There's nothing novel about it, and no description, so in my opinion not worth keeping. This time I will propose it for deletion with the usual 2-week buffer in case anyone wants to do something with it. Marasmusine (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2016 (MDT)

I was just wondering why the Lord of the Rings campaign setting should get deleted. Why not keep it? Unless you want to link to the SRD for each of these entries, or what did you have in mind? --Green Dragon (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2016 (MDT)
As the Campaign setting page history notes, it looks like it was deleted because for 2 years, there was no progress on the setting, that was already nowhere near enough content to be playable. A lot of the content was indeed largely SRD-borrowed, which I thought is contrary to the OGL license if its not meaningfully different. Anyhow, any content that stood up as good in its own right was transferred to the normal namespace. --SgtLion (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2016 (MDT)
I know, but I am talking about how the moving of pages and the like made every link on this CS a red link. Its just that if someone wants to use a LotR theme in their campaign, then its nice to have a CS with blue links not red ones. For me, its all the same since someone needs to put the work into it. But I am just commenting on that if someone is putting the work into deleting the pages, then why shouldn't we fix the link to the SRD instead of deleting it? --Green Dragon (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (MDT)

Review Request[edit]

(For this topic, all posters, please follow example, and only post links directly to what needs to be reviewed and once they are submitted and accepted as legitimately usable in a particular edition, please remove the link. This it to keep unnecessary clutter from filling the page.)

Anansi-Salticidae_Arachnomorpha-Greater(5e_Race) Simplified version.

Stick_Men_(5e_Race)

Hi Peter (GD)...[edit]

This site you have is VERY useful! And in most ways VERY entertaining when it comes to the home brew parts of the site! I enjoyed seeing creatures like Gizmo & their dark spawn gremlins! I half expected there to be a description for Stripe or his"gang members. But I was in tears when I came across "Barry Wight"! I envisioned a pack of them pouncing on my unsuspecting players! Playing snippets of his SMOOTH & SOULFUL voice in his songs when one of the creatures special Attacks were used! That being said, I have found SOME creatures descriptions either slightly confusing or in some cases absolutely baffling. Now I HAVE put a comment in some of the discussion areas. But when looking over some of the members activity. I fear some questions will NEVER be answered. Is there a way for you to email creators to get answers to some inquiries? If they are sent to you? Also, I've ONLY sent mostly questions or corrections. I fear I MAY get a bad reputation. I do try to be PC, as I KNOW the world has become VERY sensitive over the years. But I hope that I do NOT come off as a know it all, or an elitist. I'm something of a perfectionist and a spelling Nazi. So, when I see misspelled words or grammar issues. I want to fix them. Now, I'm NOT saying my grammar is perfect. But, I'm sure you have seen worse. I KNOW I HAVE! So I'm apologizing now if I ruffle any feathers! I guess I should have been an editor or a proof reader or something. LOL! Well that is my 2 cent speech! Thanks for any info about contacting collaborators to clarify their creations! I will NEED your input & assistance when I FINALLY unvail my own creations. But for now, I will just thank you for an EXTREMELY helpful resource! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grymmlocke (talkcontribs) 08:23, 15 May 2016‎. Please sign your posts!

Are you not able to email the contributors that you are talking about yourself? If you go to a userpage and look at the "Tools" toolbox, then you should see an "Email this user" option there. Is there anything else that I can help you with? --Green Dragon (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

Licensing Options on Upload Page[edit]

Green Dragon,

I wanted to see about adding an option to the list of licensing options available on Special:Upload.

Specifically, I would like to add the {{Cc-by-Nc-Nd-3.0}} template, as many of my own images (as well as several that come from Deviantart, in general), use this license, instead of a simple Cc-by-3.0 license.

Unfortunately, I am having difficulties locating the page in order to do so. --Jwguy (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2016 (MDT)

Have you tried to add the option on MediaWiki:Licenses? It seems to be working just fine for me. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2016 (MDT)

Harassment[edit]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Blue_Dragon#Harassment

Thank you for your assistance.

hi and need of help[edit]

hi

i just posted a doomhammer artifact weapon and i wish to get some help with finishing it so that it is posted on the weapon category.

Sincere greetings

Ghostdude123

Hi Ghostdude123, I fixed this for you and you'll find it at Doomhammer (5e Equipment). Be aware that it still needs some work! Marasmusine (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2016 (MDT)

Speedy deletion on TierArea's pages[edit]

I am deleting the remainder of TierArea's pages immediately, per their request, so this can be done with. Most had already been deleted: The only pages that were remaining were the ones that I had spend some time revising. I have now moved my revisions to different page names: nothing of TierArea's original text, history or naming remains. The exception is Trolling (5e Race), since the name of the race has context (but again, none of TA's original text is on the page). Just wanted to let you know so that you don't think I'm just deleting random pages! Marasmusine (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2016 (MDT)

If you so wish. Of course I don't know where he even mentioned that he wanted everything deleted, and also I don't know if this was said in a rage of pressure – but there is not much there anyway and if you are okay with your assistance then I guess its okay. Of course one thing of the GNU FDL v1.3 is that the content can be licensed further so we do not need to cater to users wims. Rather, wims are to be further refined into a serious discourse on content, what people have already put into their D&D games, and also even into the realm of publication procedures. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2016 (MDT)
Briefly, the issue was the TA didn't see the small print about the license, wanted to retain ownership, then threw all the toys out of the pram when they saw others could edit and criticize the work. The request was made in the form of deletion requests, as a courtesy I allowed this as they were the only contributor, and in my opinion the pages were not worth keeping. As a further courtesy I have renamed the pages that I made the effort to rewrite into a playable state, that's as far as my courtesy will go. Marasmusine (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2016 (MDT)
I understand the license misunderstanding. But, when I mentioned that we willingly work with people TierArea just put deletion up on everything. This shows a rage of pressure, which we should not reward and work with. Its like saying "we will do whatever you want!" which is really only something that a prison police officer can say in all reality. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2016 (MDT)
Acknowledged. Marasmusine (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2016 (MDT)
I've no intention to reignite any licensing issues, I'm quite happy with the current system. I fully acknowledge that in the case of long-established content, high quality content, etc. we wouldn't want to delete content on request no matter the disposition of the contributor. But are you saying we should punitively withold courtesy in regards to license misunderstandings, if the contributor isn't being nice and polite? Surely we should just prioritise sorting things out for the betterment of the content of the wiki - Otherwise we'd probably still be arguing with TierArea about this, rather than having it done and dusted. --SgtLion (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2016 (MDT)
I am not saying that we should punitively withhold any courtesy. Foremost, I am fine if we delete this content.
Secondly, I am stating the disposition that we do not offer users differing levels of courtesy. How we treat one page, needs to be fair and applicable 1) to D&D Wiki 2) to the content and 3) to the community supporting this page. Doing something from a users whim is not applicable to 1) or 2) and thus should not actually be done. Unlike a prison, we do not have checks between users and authority, we do not have a strict time schedule between users and personnel, and we also do not have a differing disposition between users and security. Thus, we do not have the power to do anything anyone wants since this administrator task can easily slip out of our grasp and be misused. Thus, it is better to not even consider this type of structure and rather consider the merits of a request based off the 1-3 options I stated before in a 3:0 or 2:1 winning ratio. Does this make any sense to you, or should i try to explain it more thoroughly? Maybe there are some more things I am not thinking about when we consider how a page should be treated? --Green Dragon (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2016 (MDT)
No, that makes sense to me. I think I just misread the meaning of your initial explanation. Thank you!~<3 --SgtLion (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2016 (MDT)

Vandal Troll[edit]

I'm sorry for posting this here, I'm new to the site and didn't know where else to put this. There is an anonymous editor who keeps deleting large swaths of other people's content. The editor is 80.1.30.76. I would clean up after him, but every time I do, he merely reverts the fix. Selfawarebot (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2016 (MDT)

Great catch! I have now blocked this IP and reverted its edits. If you come across more misbehaving IPs please let me know. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2016 (MDT)
Sure thing! I quite like this wiki and would like to see it flourish. Selfawarebot (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2016 (MDT)

Where is the line on deletions/abandoned/leave?[edit]

What's chill, yo? I noticed I've done quite a number of deletion proposals recently, as it's nice to continue the generally positive trend of increasing quality. I've come to you because I've done many 'n many, and I'm not sure where to draw the line, really. I've seen general guidelines we've outlined in the past, but nothing enormously helpful. Following is where I stand on these things at these moment:

  • If an article is being actively updated (As in meaningful edit in the last 2-4 weeks or so) then I don't put deletion templates. Improvement templates might be added, though.
  1. Obviously we apply delete templates to articles with little/no content, those are clear cut.
  2. Fairly clear we apply delete templates to half-finished and unplayable articles. These are generally unsaveable.
  3. If an article has a more meaningful issue: Unsaveably unplayable/Meaningfully incomplete/Unbalanced to its core/Novels' worth of poor wording. I generally add an abandoned to it - Is that right?
  4. If an article has moderate issues: Mechanics not quite complete/needs a few paragraphs to be actually playable/meaningfully, but saveably unbalanced/a half hour of word checking is needed. There aren't too many articles I think fall into this category, but there do so seem to be a significant amount. What should I be doing with these? Sometimes I'm harsh and send them for abandoned/delete, sometimes I leave them, in the hope that a passing user will save them, if it's a simple enough job then I will try save it, but I don't have the time to do that with every article I come across.
  5. If an article has had a minor issue for like, 1+ years: Generally playable, but some unclear mechanics/terrible wording/no formatting/not balanced for normal campaigns/no lore. These also don't sit right with me. These make up a decent amount of articles that I imagine people come to dandwiki and see, then find unuseable, and then don't come back. As far as I understand, policy here is to sort of, let these lie. Again, if I think I have time to save these articles, I will, but more often than not, I will give them my mercy, and they will go on to tarnish our reputation for quality for another few years until I see it again.
  6. If an article has had a minor issue for a few months: I generally give it benefit of the doubt, hoping its owner or someone else will come by and fix a relatively new article.

It's those points 4/5 and occasionally 3 that I have sticklers with, usually. Articles living on the border between life and deletion. On one hand, I like the idea that we're accomodating to contributors, I don't want to be mean and reject their hard work just because it's an hour's work from perfect playability. On the other hand, these articles are standing around, not being useful content, in their hundreds - Complete with hundreds of improvement templates that have spent years unaddressed. And they make it a lot harder for users to find the actual good stuff. I know content is subjective, but this void is not at all conducive to a good result.

I would also like to hear other people's view on this, so please do share. --SgtLion (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2016 (MDT)

Hi SgtLion, a few years ago I made some notes at Category_talk:Candidates_for_Deletion#Rule of thumb. Marasmusine (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2016 (MDT)
Also, if the decision is fuzzy/grey area, then I am biased towards keeping interesting ideas, and biased towards deleting unoriginal material (what I call "yet another cat/wolf-folk race syndrome") Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2016 (MDT)
You have written some good general remarks on deletion. Since this area has such a general nature, I have been hesitant to work with these type of rulesets.
My advice on 3 and 6 is that what you are advising works well.
My advice on 4 is to check the history. If it has a good history with involved users then they may have plans for these pages, and I would first add other reviewing templates. If the history is not really noteworthy, or the page does not deal with the reviewing templates for some time, then I would change It to {{abandoned}}.
My advice on 5 is to use those rules of thumb.
Do you think it is a good idea if we add these general remarks as advice on {{delete}}? I imagine that there are more users that come across this same type of misunderstanding and give up often enough to make it useful. --Green Dragon (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2016 (MDT)
I wonder how I missed those guidelines. Shame on me. Thanks for clarifying it - I'm in agreement with what's been said.
Alright, so I'm glad I've pretty much been along these lines thus far. I realise deletion isn't the solution to our swathes of 5s (Although referring to them like that already makes me feel like I'm a dystopian sci-fi: "DELETE THE CAT FIVES"), but they are frustratin'. I'll keep goin' as I am for now, then.
I think it might be a good idea to better emphasise on the delete templates that the proposed article is perfectly saveable - As contributors have a tendency to panic, I think, when they see their articles being lambasted. How exactly we put that across though, I'm not sure. --SgtLion (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2016 (MDT)

Echo Warrior[edit]

Hi, You have a character/type called "Echo Warrior" on your web site... Just as a heads up... There is a guy who is trying to trademark the words "Echo Warrior" and if he does a search and sees your site using his trademarked words it could cause a great deal of financial and legal headaches for you... Submission 87121789 July 29th 2016 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.248.10.37 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Thanks for the notice - I've looked up the application (here, for interested people). This trademark application only applies to entertainment media, anime, video productions and similar categories. As such even if this application is accepted (Not a lawyer, but I'd deem it unlikely), the restriction on the term will only apply to articles that 1) Are in a similar category (TV Show/Anime/etc) and/or 2) That general public could plausibly see a meaningful link (or be confused) between our article and the owner of the Trademark. Even then, if we were deemed to be infringing on that trademark, any legal issues would only arise if we actively refused to desist in use of the term.
So thanks a lot for the notice! I will keep an eye on it. But legally speaking, we should be okay for the moment. --SgtLion (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2016 (MDT)

Homebrew/SRD differentiation concerns[edit]

Hiya, GD. Big rant right o' here, if you wouldn't mind weighing in - Sorry~. And I know we're also sorting tavern stuff, but there's really no rush. Respond when you feel like it. --SgtLion (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2016 (MDT)

What are my boundaries?[edit]

OK, so lately I've kind of been doing a lot of work that I'm worried may be overstepping my limits as an admin. I understand that this is, ultimately, your website, and it really should grow and operate the way you see fit. Just because it's a wiki does not mean it must belong to the users like a runaway freight train, (like wikipedia). I respect that. However, that being the case, I want some kind of guidance. How far can I go with this kind of work before I've gone too far? I want to make the wiki, and the associated community, grow and prosper. I want this to be the fun, exciting, wonderful thing that I know it can be- what it is right now in some places! And I am willing to spend sleepless hours working towards that end. However, I also want the wiki to stay within its creator's vision. I don't want to start derailing things and have a bunch of work reverted because I overstepped somehow. I also don't want to start some ridiculous fight like that nonsense that supposedly spawned spin-offs. I know that most of that fight centered around copyright/authorship issues, and debates over quality. These are both still big issues on the wiki today, and part of what I want to do is eventually get the wiki up to a point where it can tackle those issues responsibly, rather than leaving it all to you and BD. I am annoyed that it feels like I am mostly alone in the effort though. Other users provide a few comments here or there, or add in a useful paragraph to a guideline or something, but by-and-large, I'm basically writing a bunch of rough-draft policies alone, with very little guidance. That seems inappropriate to me. There should be community consensus behind that kind of stuff... But most of the time, the community for 5e is you, me, Marasmusine, and sometimes Azernath or Salasay, and it feels like the community is very slow and quiet. I don't know whether to take silence as a vote of confidence, or just a sign that nobody noticed or cares. I want to see actual progress- I don't want improvement projects to stagnate in obscurity and silence and ultimately go nowhere, like so many pages on the wiki. Here is, by my understanding, what this wiki is, and what my boundaries are. These are the assumptions I have been using behind all of my work for the last few weeks. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • dandwiki is an inclusive, open, easily accessed community, with a focus on collaborative homebrew. We do not especially value individual authorship, instead deferring to community consensus about how best to develop a concept. As a consequence, any given piece of homebrew may have the combined efforts of many users, without necessarily representing any of their personal visions of what it should be, but rather the most effective compromise between them. It is a courtesy to respect the spirit of the original poster's creation, but otherwise, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This is distinct from DnD-Wiki, which strongly values individual authorship, and opposes collaborative design unless it is explicitly concented to.
  • dandwiki does have quality standards and tools for regulating its content. It is intended to be self-regulating by an active, interested community, in the format of a quality-assured system. Instead of dedicated inspectors who "sign off" on content and face consequences if their judgement is wrong, (a quality-guaranteed system), here every user is assumed to be an inspector, and is expected to actively make changes to improve/assure quality. The standards of "quality" are supposed to be based on community consensus, such that it can reflect the ambiguous and subjective nature of the concept in gaming. (I have been taking some steps to codify, in general, what that seems to mean in most cases, but I want to leave the policies more open-ended, so they aren't restrictive of creative design)
  • OGL and SRD content is hosted on the wiki primarily as a benefit to the creation of homebrew, allowing us to create and use links as references, rather than cluttering our pages with clunky page references, or a citation system as seen on wikipedia, which would make dandwiki less accessible to new users, due to the sudden jump in technical learning curb. The SRD/OGL's use as a reference in general, though accepted as being useful, is not its primary intent. We also lack the licensing necessary to create pages containing officially published content, and so long as WotC is making money off their publications, we'll probably never get it. As a consequence, dandwiki is not, and can not be, an encyclopedic project. It has more in common with those old play-by-post roleplaying wikis than it does with wikipedia.
  • The main objective of every editor/contributor should be to improve the wiki in some way, to make it a better, more useful place on the internet. This goes doubly for administrators, who also have the responsibility of monitoring and regulating the social environment, dealing with problematic users, arguments, criminal activity, (like copyright infringement or harassment) and vandalism. To this end, every user should be able and willing to participate in the creation, maintenance, and improvement of guidelines and policies by which the community self-regulates, under the guidance of the wiki bureaucrats.

Considering I haven't been reprimanded for anything yet, I'm guessing I'm not far off the mark, but I'd still like some clarity on just what my limits are here. --Kydo (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

The boundaries for you mostly come from w:Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Its not my role to tell you "yes!" and "no!" anywhere really. You are using words like "your website" and "creator" but I am simply the "person ultimately in change", and this is meant in the most correct of senses. In this role I work to stop edits which are not done with censuses, any logic, and/or in a democratic method. In addition upholding community norms is highly important, and also making sure that community norms are not misguided is part of this too. Keeping new policies and meta within a structure is also something I look at. I also make sure that the website physically operates and has all the physical needs to continue working.
If there is something that you are really timid about, just let me know and I will take a look at it, so that I do not have to oversee its correct implementation from the position of one "ultimately in charge". Don't be timid though, you wont start a runaway train! Most of your concerns above seem to come from a policy or so, but which one and where is your angst coming from? --Green Dragon (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2016 (MDT)
The guidelines outlining what, specifically, constitutes complete, flavorful, and balanced content for the wiki in a given area. I mean, I straight-up wrote the entirety of the 5e Background Design Guide! In particular, Precedent (DnD Guideline) worries me. It's a useful way of packaging a complex concept into a single word for technical discussion, (I've been using that word in that way for about 5 years now) but I also worry that some people may read it too strictly, thinking "balance" is only relevant to the core rules, and not an independent abstract concept, rather than understanding precedent as simply a foundation, a rule-of-thumb to avoid power creep and maintain compatibility with the game.
I am also concerned about template:Design Disclaimer. I kind of took a vague concept and hijacked it into something only somewhat similar to its original purpose. I did so primarily with the intent of clarifying its purpose and function, in order to make it more useful in a practical sense. I worry that I changed it too significantly, and too quickly, based on observations of its use and vague intuition, rather than actual discussion.
In general though, the usual lack of input from other users concerns me. Consensus matters when you're doing things which could impact we way people interact with the wiki and each other. --Kydo (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (MDT)
I shall hop in here and say that I think the changes you're making are broadly great things, Kydo. The fact of the matter is, as we are now, we're overstretched, this does make it hard for active users to actively pitch in on ideas and things. What I tend to do, if I'm making a change I'm not 100% sure about, and nobody has pitched in about it, is just mention it to GD or Marasmusine or someone else, and see their thoughts on it. Though I agree, the ideal situation is that everybody actively discusses every change, I fear that's just too much work (certainly for me, at the moment) to be getting on with. If you're comfortable with it, then please, keep going with what you're doing. I do think you're actively making a positive change, and that's pretty obviously good. If anyone has a significant objection, they'll likely raise it, even if takes years to get 'round to it. --SgtLion (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2016 (MDT)
I agree with what SgtLion wrote, and I just want to stress that it is important to respond to a critical discussion. It helps to also look at what other users are doing, and if you feel that this may influence your work then by all means take that into consideration. Also be critical and look at what you and other admins are doing from various views. For example some users may see your work on Template:Design Disclaimer and say Wow! no way am I going to understand all those rule nuances! I am just going to stick with letting an admin do it now!" Looking at your work through the eyes of a child could help a lot, but maybe it would also make it incomprehensible. If you supplied a set of pre-written templates, maybe people would pay more attention to this template.
For 5e Background Design Guide it maybe would be best to start the page with a large bold box like Template:Adult Theme stating "Don't like how you are playing your character, who you are, or fed up with the DM? Make your background!" --Green Dragon (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (MDT)
I did supply it with a selection of pre-scripted templates. For example, the fly template says,

Which is an awful lot to say, but unrestricted flight is kind of a big issue in the balance debate.
You are right though. I can see a greenhorn looking at that template and going "I don't even know what balance is yet, and now you're telling me it's wishy-washy?" But the sad part is, yeah, that's exactly what I'm telling you! It's complex and subtle, and it takes like a decade of experience and interaction with the community to really build a good sense of when something is designed outside of balance but is still OK, as compared to something that is actually just broken. And even very experienced gamers with a thorough, deep understanding of the game can have DRASTICALLY opposing views of where those boundaries lie. (Just look at what happened with Races of War, or the endless debates over whether SGTs are even valid measurements) Yes it's complex. Yes it's over a lot of peoples' heads. Yes it's important that even newbies be aware of it, even if they don't fully understand it. Because, if a noob accidentally makes such a thing and sparks a debate, we need to have a tool that can be used to protect their work. It makes this wiki a safer place for people to be creative, while still maintaining a clear standard for balance. So, in a way, it really is kind of for admin and high-functioning design-minded editors. You're not supposed to just slap the thing on every page you make so you don't need to achieve balanced design, it's to protect unique works from restrictive and dogmatic opinions of balance. (And I say opinions, because sometimes balance isn't just numbers, it comes down to how you play the game, and that's where things get muddy)
I didn't even know we had an adult content disclaimer! How neat! I can think of a few pages that should be put on right off the top of my head! I tried to be as PG-13 as possible with that guideline though... What was it that could be construed as offensive? Maybe we should make a page which compiles all of these disclaimer templates together, like with the improving templates, and presents them somewhere readily accessible to everyone, like under meta. Right now, there are a lot of useful templates floating in a weird sort of wiki-limbo where you need to know to search for them in order to even find them. That makes the wiki rather opaque and difficult to use, very unfriendly for users who are new to the wiki interface. --Kydo (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2016 (MDT)
I am not saying that people cannot use these templates, but that most people will not use them since its not first explained and then presented. Instead, its just presented. This is why if you included an example for each usage (or just the code), then people may use it. For example: Weird fly rules being used somewhere? Slap {{fly}} on that page! Unfortunately it is not usable in this way now.
Since you have been wondering a lot about the standard procedures this one goes like this: If {{Adult Theme}} is to get a special page then it should first somehow be mentioned on Help:Portal. I agree though that we are missing a lot of templates by doing it this way. If you want to make a big difference correcting this policy void would make some sense. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2016 (MDT)
OK. Let's start fixing the mess that is our help pages then. Because if in going to that, such a page needs a logical structure to fit within. That particular portal has a lot of cobwebs. Please take a look at the following pages.
Help:Introduction did not exist.
Help:Portal had multiple links to the same page for headers which do not exist. It also contained links to individual 3.5e design guidelines, rather than a link to the full multiple-editions guidelines page.
D&D Wiki:About should be cleaned up to reflect the wiki's history to this day, and to have a more professional tone of voice. It should be linked to in our welcome message. It should include a mission statement, either in its text directly or as a link, as discussed at the end of Discussion:Homebrew 'n SRD Differentiation and other issues at the moment.
Help:Contents and D&D Wiki:About should be merged. They cover the same subject matter, both in an incomplete form, so both are redundant.
Help:Editing is a stub.
Constructive Editing (DnD Guideline) is a little wishy-washy and unprofessional in tone. It also links directly to the 3.5e Class Design Guide, showing it was clearly made prior to the inclusion of other editions. If updated, this could be a good place to include an overview of disclaimer templates, or at least link to such a page.
The D&D Wiki:Things to do should contain links to the individual edition to do lists.
Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline) contains a reiteration of When to Italicize and Capitalize (DnD Guideline) rather than linking to it directly.
Help:Article Naming is a wandering, muddled page, some of its attitudes are out of date. Others are poorly explained. It needs revision. In particular, its section on the design disclaimer is a policy form that, as far as I can tell, is not followed, is not enforced, and has been replaced by the creation of variant content categories.
Help:Behavioral Policy includes a link to the mature content disclaimer. I'd like to see disclaimers collected on a single page, and have the help pages link to that instead.
I have noticed that, at no point did I ever encounter the improvement templates compilation page. That's a pretty important thing for new users to have access to, and is a likely topic of interest from the help portal. It should be there. --Kydo (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2016 (MDT)
I have updated the scripted design disclaimers so that they can function independently. --Kydo (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2016 (MDT)
I would like your input on Help talk:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates please. --Kydo (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2016 (MDT)

So, a while ago I wrote Precedent (DnD Guideline) because it was necessary to have some sort of basis in order to write design guidelines at all. I used compatibility as the baseline for balance, because that seemed to be about the only thing the entire administartion team consistently pointed out when criticising a page for balance. Since it was the only balance issue we had clear consensus on, and because it's pretty wishy-washy in any case, I felt pretty safe in just adding it to the wiki. I have been writing two other articles about balance and quality though, and I am not as confident about them being acceptable standards. Do you mind reading User:Kydo/A Good DM and User:Kydo/Spirit and Intent and sharing your thoughts about them? They're kind of long, so I can understand if you don't have the time. (Also, if anyone lurking GD's talk page sees this, yes, I would appreciate your opinions too.) --Kydo (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

Netbook of Feats[edit]

Hey Green Dragon, since it seems to be that you're the one ultimately in charge of everything, was wondering if there was any guidelines here that I should be made aware of in regards to my cleanup of The Netbook of Feats Version 12.4 of the Netbook of Feats page. I have spent quite a bit of time working on it already, having trimmed it down greatly in size already through just general wiki related fixing and am continuing to work on that page but wish to know if there is something I should know in regards to that document that I may be unaware of, or wiki guidelines that may affect how it is cleaned up. I also have made a comment on that pages talk page if discussion of the cleanup wants to be taken there instead. Thanks, Kalbintion (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

I hope I answered your question on that page. If you need some formatting help or anything, just drop me a message! --Green Dragon (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2016 (MDT)
Hey I've since replied to what you put on that page but haven't heard anything back from you. Looking forward to working with that page. Thanks. Kalbintion (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2016 (MDT)

Legality of reposting content from dandwiki elsewhere[edit]

Please, please, please do not crucify me for asking this- I am merely curious, and want to understand our policies better such that I can enforce them more effectively as admin. (Which I am currently doing by writing them down in an easily accessible format.) At the bottom of every edit page, it says "Please note that all contributions to D&D Wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 (see D&D Wiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" I have taken that to heart when editing here, it rather gruffly expresses the true, honest nature of what a wiki is. Now, I try to understand legalese whenever it is important to my activities, (I have a pretty strong grasp of Canadian copyright law regarding artwork in the professional fine arts scene, for example) but it's usually pretty far over my head in most cases. Now, I'm not asking about any specific details regarding the GNU FDL, but doesn't the phrase, "redistributed at will" rather imply that the content has absolutely no copyright protection whatsoever, and therefore allows anyone to copy material from here to anywhere else? I know that isn't a legal document, but that is the implication. I also know that, in the past, you were of the opinion (again, I haven't read the document thoroughly, so I'm not making any definite statements about it) that copying material out from dandwiki onto other websites was illegal according to the licensing of this wiki. If the implication of the edit page disclaimer is incorrect, I believe it should be altered, or removed from the form, so as not to mislead users.

In any case, I would like clarification of what the policy regarding reposting of content elsewhere actually is, and why, so that it can be written down for all users to know, understand, follow, and enforce. It is very difficult to do any of those things without any tangible material (in a state that can be understood by a lay-man) to justify it. Writing such a policy from observation alone is, at the moment, very difficult, considering the precedent you and the other current admin have set, (Do not copy content from here to elsewhere) which seems to be contradicted by the dandwiki magazine which explicitly publishes wiki content in a new format, technically on another website, with authorial attribution. Because of the massive positive potential inherent in the magazine project, I believe it would be best for this community if its existence is somehow validated by policy, regardless what it says about any other form of redistribution.

I'm guessing it has something to do with this,

"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3. "

followed by people making copies under a license which does not include the GNU FDL, and are also failing to replicate the GNU FDL on the copy. Am I correct? That would make the most sense, and seems the most likely problem, though it'd be pretty hard to legally enforce with derivative work like the content of this wiki. Frankly, I don't even care if this wiki's policy on redistribution is validated by the GNU FDL. I just need to know what it is so I can put in writing.

I know there were a lot of hurt feelings over this topic in the past, and that's why it matters that we be very clear and open about the subject from now on. It is to the benefit of everyone on this wiki that those kinds of destructive arguments do not occur ever again. I am trying to help this place grow and flourish again. I want our bad reputation to at least be wrong, if not reversed. I want the wiki to be an equal to the other D&D communities, rather than the butt of a series of D&D meme jokes. I want the wiki to provide a valuable service to the D&D homebrewing community, rather than spreading frustration and anger. To do that, we need lots of dedicated users and good, active administrators. To get them we need clear, obvious, useful policies. That's all I'm trying to do here, my intentions are good. --Kydo (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2016 (MDT)

Well, I made an attempt anyways. Help:Legal is my stab at putting our legal policies into a very loud and easily accessible form, and explaining how this community interprets and uses those licenses. I based the text off of the results of the various arguments regarding the license that I have read. Please make any corrections where my assumptions were flawed. --Kydo (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2016 (MDT)
You're getting a little pre-emptively worked up over this, keep it chill. The last argument happened because a decent number of admins seemed to believe that contributors kept full rights over their content (And they don't). - GD and BD are sometimes absent for some days, too, because life.
It's hard to fully see what you're asking, so I'm sorry if I'm not hitting the point you wanted. As far as I've ever understood, everything here is licensed under GNU FDL, unless otherwise marked. We have no policy on content rights or management that is separate from that. 'Redistributed at will' does mean 'Redistributed at will as much as is allowed under the terms of GNU FDL 1.3', in this case.
Copying content to outside Dandwiki is legal under the terms of GNU FDL, I don't think GD disagrees with that whatsoever. But the terms of GNU FDL means that others can't relicense the content under anything else, and this was another point of confusion back in the day. We live in an odd void of this legal world, because our finished articles don't really have a single 'author', as such, so it's hard to say whether any single contributor has legal rights to relicense work (Unless they are the sole author of given thing). I don't know how that bit works, sadly, as I am no lawyer. I'm not sure where this idea has stemmed from, but as far as I've ever talked and seen - Content from dandwiki can be copied to another website, under GNU FDL terms.
So, while 'redistributed at will' might not be the most precise term, I think it best represents the idea that whatever you contribute to this wiki may be changed and copied to places you don't want it to. In which case don't put it here. Thanks yet again for the effort you're putting in to make these things explicit. --SgtLion (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (MDT)
I actually got worked up over the arguments I've been reading in various page histories. Even with specific insults removed as per policy, there is some very hurtful phrasing mixed in with a lot of that. It was painful to read a lot of those arguments. Poorly worded replies, and poorly justified opinions all around. Immaturity and hostility. But I was reading them because I felt it was important to do something about it. A misunderstanding happened, a very big misunderstanding, and it had some pretty significant consequences for this community... and it looked like nobody had done anything to resolve the situation. The licenses were still not easy to find through help. (In fact, they couldn't be found through help.) There were no stated policies based on those licenses. There was no explanation. Ostensibly, the same damn argument could happen all over again. In fact, it has been, in isolated, individual, non-admin cases. Each of those users who left in a huff because they didn't understand what we do here or how we do it could have had a better experience, if only we'd made more of an effort to talk to them about it first. I then had to go on a guy's talk page and tell him to take down his attribution templates... Without having any policies to justify my actions. The license doesn't say anything about how we should do things here on the wiki, and it would be unreasonable for us to expect newbies to somehow divine what that license means for social protocol here. He kept posting more stuff, so I had to do something, so I wrote help:Legal.
Also, it is worth mentioning that, as I work 12 hour night shifts, my sense of time is... err... distorted. A lot. A single day to you guys is two days to me, divided by two 4-hour nights in the morning and evening. So I can get pretty impatient with things which, to me, seem to be dragging on forever, but to others have only sat for a day and a half. --Kydo (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2016 (MDT)
Geez, yeah, that schedule sounds confusing, fair enough indeed. And aye, I'm guessing that everyone involved doesn't feel those discussions went as well as they could've.
And I fully agree, actually - we should make our content policies and licenses very clear and explicit to users, to avoid misunderstandings. Though the thoroughness with which we display our policies would certainly hold up in court, it would work better if we could use clarified explanations to make life easier for everyone. In that quest, your work on Help:Legal is hella good, I'll make sure to go over it with a fine-toothed comb soon. This was actually probably a much bigger issue than I had previously thought, nice stuff. --SgtLion (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2016 (MDT)

I'm having trouble finding my way around the wiki[edit]

Hi I was trying to make a new class vehicle a air ship That is for end game in campaigns that the levels are extended it is supposed to be a extreme end game unit and not very common in the world very few and far between a country might have as many as five mostly used against strong holds or castles/navy and other air ships but whith human players you never know as my game the political process of countries can be manipulated by the players and as such a player could become a king and could only save it to my user page and was wondering how I would go about having it moved somewhere that others may see or improve it my username is dwarik forge hart it's also my character name for my dnd homebrue game I've been building on paper for about a year and came across your wiki and really like it so I joined and would like to build custom items/vehicles/creatures/spells and was wondering how to work the site better so I can contribute when I have a idea and thank you for your time sincerely a d&d player named kaylin

Hey there, I'm not GD, but I do lurk his page, and am a little more active. Welcome to the wiki! I have delivered the welcome message to your talk page. I have found the page you are talking about, D&D Wiki:Air ships by dwarik forge hart. It appears you actually added it to your user page, then tried to move it, which turned your userpage into a redirect. Then you moved it again, creating a double redirect. Ok. That's interesting and totally fixable. Here's what I'm going to do for you.
  1. I'm going to move that page to a user subpage under your user name for now, and call it "sandbox". Lots of users have a sandbox subpage to work on stuff before posting it to mainspace. It's pretty useful.
  2. I'm going to delete all those needless redirects, as page deletion is an administrator action.
  3. I'm going to put links to the help pages most relevant to your issue on your talk page.
  4. I'm going to find out where that content is supposed to go, and link you to it.
Sound good? --Kydo (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2016 (MDT)
OK! Done! How's that looking? --Kydo (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2016 (MDT)

File Upload Issue[edit]

I am trying to upload File:Child of Ares.jpg for User:SansGenocide, but for some reason it reorients itself when I upload it. I tried deleting all of the technical information from the image, and yet it still does this. How do I fix it? --Kydo (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2016 (MDT)

OK. Yeah. I give up. It's like the wiki is psychic. No matter how many different ways I try to get around it, the wiki somehow knows that I've additionally rotated the image in an editor and puts it back to the original 90 degrees clockwise. I didn't even take the picture sideways in the first place. --Kydo (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2016 (MDT)
I am seeing this image vertical. Very confused here. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2016 (MDT)
I am seeing it sideways and stretched into the vertical orientation's dimensions. --Kydo (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2016 (MDT)
This is what I see: The knight is holding the flag at a roughly 20 degree angle from vertical, and walking forward. The black hands and weapons are on the bottom. Can you describe what you want or what you are seeing? --Green Dragon (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2016 (MDT)
I am seeking the image rotated 90 degrees left of what you are describing, buts stretched into the dimensions of its upright orientation. It is squashed and deforemed. I reuploaded the file under a different name and it worked fine, so I'm just going to delete the original. I'm not sure what the problem with it is, but it's clearly on my end. It's redundant in any case. Thanks for taking a look. --Kydo (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2016 (MDT)

5e SRD:Magic Items[edit]

Hey Green Dragon. I've recently created the 5e SRD:Magic Items page, but it shows all the homebrew items. Could you assist? SirSprinkles (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2016 (MDT)

Was this just in the page preview? The previews for some dpls do not consider all the categories (or something like this). Great work on this page! Did you see the footer that it the right one to use (see 5e SRD:Adamantine Armor)? --Green Dragon (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2016 (MDT)
That issue has been sorted out now, and I've been implementing the 5e SRD magic item footer since you pointed it out. SirSprinkles (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2016 (MDT)

Removing content[edit]

I placed a background on this site about a year ago and wanted to take it down if possible. I wanted to put the content on the DMs Guild for free (with option of donation), but didn't want people thinking I simply stole it from a content creator on this site. I deleted the content on the page, and left a small note there. If I cannot remove my content from here, please let me know and I can restore the deleted items, though I'd prefer that it be taken down, as I do not want to be accused of plagiarism, though I do want to share my content on the DMs Guild and get people interested in my work. Thanks.

If you need to reach me, send me an e-mail to , as this is the best way to reach me. Hope you can help me out. Thanks.

Just add {{delete}} to the page. The page will be considered as part of the process. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2016 (MDT)
Thanks. P.S. I'm taking my e-mail off this page so it isn't just floating around the internet. I will check back here in a few days to see if you need any contact info. Thanks again.
All I did was give you the information about what you need to do if you think you are right. Of course, Kydo already made the point which will determine the page's state. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (MDT)

FA Project[edit]

I'm working on a thing. User:Kydo/FA_Update_Project. It's FAR from complete, and currently dysfunctional. I'm trying to improve the technical side of how FAs are constructed so people can interact with the process entirely on the content page side of things. However, I've hit a couple of snags which have me stumped. Maybe it's cause it's 6:08am and I haven't slept since 5pm yesterday afternoon. Maybe they're real problems. 1. The text from the template as being output in white on the faux main page and I have no idea why. 2. Is there a way to make a template transclude the <noinclude> tag on the target page, rather than processing its function in the transclusion process? I'm not sure if you know the solutions to those. I'll bust my brains over it some more tomorrow night. I'd be happy to hear your opinions on it. --Kydo (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2016 (MDT)

That is great. The show/hide seems to be most important part about that page (unless you have a vision for the project page), but you don't need to wait to implement this edit since it hardly changes the base state of the FA pages and process. Its just an improvement edit (which do not need to be voted/discussed/etc). Great job! --Green Dragon (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2016 (MDT)
I'm doing it in subpages because I won't have much time for a few days, (yay, Canadian holidays!) and it's currently VERY buggy. I don't want to interfere with people potentially interacting with FAs while the improvement is under development. --Kydo (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2016 (MDT)

GFDL and DM's Guild Legal Interaction[edit]

We have a user who wants to produce work on both the DM's Guild and this wiki. He asked me what the legal situation would be there. You can see my interpretation of how these documents interact with one-another here. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I'm not, it basically means the DM's Guild has the legal capacity to eat our wiki's content with almost no restriction. --Kydo (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

I hope I answered the question now. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2016 (MDT)

Account Deactivation[edit]

I would like to close my D&D Wiki Account. DarkArcherPrince (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2016 (MDT)

See also [1]. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2016 (MDT)

Transcribing Open Game Content[edit]

I'm wondering what is the proper format for transcribing a 3.x sourcebook? I saw some pages used a single article for it all, but that seemed too long and inaccessible to me, so I was thinking of using headers to denote chapters, then linking to articles for the OGL content under each relevant chapter. Assuming that's alright, I need some additional questions answered: What should the page title look like (Example Race (3.5e OGC Race)? Template isn't much of an issue, since most OGL content is stats without much fluff, but are there any guidelines for this? Can I make a variant of the default OGL Bottom template that's easier to use? What about breadcrumbs? Since it isn't homebrew or SRD content, I'm not sure where to link it to. That's all I can think of right now, and I patiently await a response :)--GamerAim (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2016 (MDT)

I made the template and an example OGC race page. Thoughts?--GamerAim (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2016 (MDT)

Great question! Please format them like examples from The Advanced Player's Manual, or UA:Variant Rules (just without the namespace since that's too much to ask). Does this answer your question? --Green Dragon (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (MDT)
I was thinking something like this and this for formatting, but the former varies by book, I'd think. The example I linked to is very strict with OGL content, so a chapter-based organization seems pointless. For more lenient works, your links would be better examples. I've no problem with using namespaces, but what namespace? A general OGC/L: namespace, or specific for each book? Latter could get complicated. I think third-party OGL content should be grouped differently from SRD and homebrew, since it's professionally published third-party OGL content, rather than first-party or homebrew stuff.
That class brings up a good question: Is the OGL template good? Specifically, are both good? Like, legal-wise. That page fills in the gaps of the third-party OGL class with SRD stuff excluded from the book to save space. Also, should such content be protected, or treated as regular homebrew? Others editing it would be fine if it kept the legal disclaimers, but would make transcription kinda pointless since it might not match the real books.
So, if we did separate third-party professionally published OGC from SRD and homebrew, would we need to make a new namespace and organizational pages ala homebrew structure? I just don't want people thinking it's homebrew or SRD material because it's listed as such, but it's your call. That's really all I need from you, since I think I know how to format the individual pages (assuming you have no objections or suggestions) aside from breadcrumbs and page name. Sorry this is so long; I'm bad at explanations and just wanna make sure it meets with your approval before I make dozens of pages that need name-changed >_>--GamerAim (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2016 (MDT)
The "OGC:" namespace is really great. Great idea, and use that one. When there are enough OGC pages in this format, like by moving the existing ones too, we can add "OGC:" as an official namespace.
Do not worry about locking the pages right now. As soon as there are enough pages, just send me a tip and I will give you temporary admin rights to lock up all these pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2016 (MDT)
I just had an idea, and I'm not too sure about it, so I'd like your opinion. Should OGC content from publications be put in a subpage of that publication? So OGC:Past Life (3.5e Feat) would become OGC:Secrets (AEG)/Past Life (3.5e Feat). The only benefits I can think of from this are a) everything being a subpage of its book might make it a way to organize it, and b) it'd be a way to avoid a potential overlapping of names (like if two books had a feat named Past Life). The cons are numerous, like being a pain to go back and implement, the organization being redundant, the organization maybe making things look worse, automated organizing being more difficult or impossible, etc. So, thoughts?--GamerAim (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (MST)
I find this much too confusing. In regard to overlapping, just including something after the name like ", Secrets, AEG" would work and not be as confusing, right? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2016 (MST)
Yeah, I think you're right. I do appreciate you giving me a second opinion on this stuff, so thanks for indulging me :)--GamerAim (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2016 (MST)
Sorry to bug you again, but I have a real serious problem that needs addressed soon (not urgently soon, but "sometime this year, maybe" soon). Unlike most of my questions, this one is less hypothetical and more "the next two publications transcribed depend on your answer." Five words: new uses for old skills. Dozens of OGL books have new rules for old skills, so how we wanna do this? Just make one OGC:Gather Information (3.5e Skill Use) (for example) page and add all new skill uses to it with appropriate Section 15 notices for each source? Or do like OGC:Specific Info (3.5e Gather Information Skill Use), OGC:Torture (3.5e Heal Skill Use), OGC:Cause of Death (3.5e Heal Skill Use)? Both are about as easy to do, though Knowledge (local) from Crime and Punishment might be hard to implement with the latter (unless you have any clever ideas on it).--GamerAim (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2016 (MST)
I am not bugged at all, I hope that I can help answer your questions. How many variations are you expecting to encounter? My first reaction would be to name them "OGC:Gather Information, Crime and Punishment (3.5e Skill Use)" My second reaction would be that your second propsal is better than the first, since otherwise its just a cross-referencing mess on each of the pages (and no one will understand why it was done like it was). Sometimes starting to add the pages will add a new dimension to how you are looking at the page lists, and some of the problems may become less important or others much more important. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2016 (MST)
How many? I took four skills from Crime & Punishment and cross-referenced them with 6 other sourcebooks across 3 other publishers, giving a small taste of what's to come (at some point). Just this small pool encompasses 22 new uses.
Gather Information: Specific Info (Crime & Punishment), Urban Tracking (Crime & Punishment), Talk of the Town (Guilds), Support Bardic Knowledge (Quintessential Bard), Uncover Locations (Quintessential Bard), Misinformation (Path of Shadow), Rumor Mongering (Path of Shadow)
Heal: Cause of Death (Crime & Punishment), Examine Injury (Crime & Punishment) Presence of Foreign Substances (Crime & Punishment), Nature of Foreign Substances (Crime & Punishment), Time of Death (Crime & Punishment), Torture (Crime & Punishment), Malpractice (Monster)
Intimidate: Torture (Crime & Punishment), Pull Rank (Guilds), Crush Resistance (Quintessential Sorcerer), Attract Attention (Quintessential Bard), Bully (Quintessential Bard), Fear Effect (Spells & Spellcraft)
Sense Motive: Spot Sense Motive (Crime & Punishment), Spot Spell Use (Crime & Punishment), Determine True Standing (Guilds), Judge of Character (Spells & Spellcraft)
So, do we wanna go with OGC:Gather Information, Crime and Punishment (3.5e Skill Use), or OGC:Specific Info (3.5e Gather Information Skill Use)? The former would mean fewer pages made, but maybe you like the individual separation of skill uses or something? I'm starting to become partial to the former, but again, the latter has its merits for organization (you could browse skill uses and find Malpractice, think it looks neat, and click it, instead of searching every skill use page to find something that catches your eye). As always, thanks for the input :)--GamerAim (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2016 (MST)
BTW, would it be okay to rename Crime and Punishment - The Players Sourcebook of the Law to Crime and Punishment? I ask because you originally created the page. I get that it's the subtitle, but I feel it makes the page name too long and...unwieldy. If not, I'll just deal with it.--GamerAim (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (MST)


Woohoo, more questions! I went ahead and removed indents since it was looking crowded on my monitor. So I realized Crime & Punishment came out one month before D&D 3.5, so I'm assuming the book is technically for 3e (unless the SRD was released either to the public or to Atlas Games sometime before March of 2003), which brings me to ask if you want to roll 3e OGC into 3.5 pages. My first instinct was no, but then I remembered that some pages that you made for C&P had 3.5e in the name, and IDK if that was a mistake (since until 5 minutes ago, I thought it was 3.5e as well) or if you want to roll 3e content into 3.5e pages. It's not super urgent since I haven't started making any new pages yet, and can just find & replace the link names if you tell me to change them to 3e. As always, thanks for the help :)--GamerAim (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2016 (MST)

Edit: I just noticed that, despite coming out a month before D&D 3.5, C&P uses the Craft (alchemy) skill, so I guess that makes it a 3.5e sourcebook. As a result, unless you say to do otherwise, I'm going to separate 3e and 3.5e material.--GamerAim (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2016 (MST)

Crime and Punishment is a better title. Just use the most relevant page title if you do not mind. For the skills, use the method you want to. I would recommend using a method "OGC:NAME, BOOK, (ID)". As soon as there are a lot of the same examples we can see if its too confusing, and if there is a more relevant method. I really think that its a great idea to make a main page for all the OGC, but about the inclusion of "3e" and "3.5e"; I think that it is fine to name any "3e" pages as such since the name space will define the type of content which can be found as OGC. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2016 (MST)

Making a 5e Monster "Elite"[edit]

Hello there!

I've been experimenting with ways to take given regular 5e monsters, and make "elite" versions of them, for the purpose of throwing customized, named monsters into random encounters every so often. The way I've gone about it up to this point is to do the following to a normal monster:
- increase all ability scores by +2
- increase AC by +2
- increase number of hit dice by +1
- use the maximum possible result of hit dice for its health
- increase challenge rating by +1 to compensate for the other changes

Any thoughts about this method? Clockwerk66 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2016 (MDT)

I hope you are pleased with the discussion on User talk:Marasmusine#Making a 5e Monster "Elite". --Green Dragon (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (MDT)

So, there are people who hate us.[edit]

So the redditors are ranting and raving about how much our wiki sucks again. Has over 500 upvotes with an 80% + rating. A lot of the anecdotes that are coming out of that topic are actually painful to read. Almost all of the stories boil down to newbies not knowing any better. There is a massive influx of green players to the hobby right now, and homebrew doesn't make sense under their concept of what constitutes a game. The idea of a game's rules being a product, and distribution of those rules being illegal, is also completely alien to them. There are not other types of games like that. They see a wiki and think its official. 5e has truly changed the nature and demographics of the hobby, and I genuinely think we need to adapt if we want to be a positive place in the online community. We're the number 1 search result for almost all things D&D related. We're being a bad neighbor. Is there a way to do any of the following? (And if there is, are any of them things that we would/should actually do?)

  • Alter our Search Engine Optimization (which I know next to nothing about) to intentionally drop ourselves down the search result list so WotC is almost always the number 1 hit. I know that's asking for intentional traffic reduction, but if most of our traffic doesn't actually want what our wiki provides, we're doing them and ourselves some degree of harm.
  • Change the website's search result name to display as something like "D&D Wiki Fan-Works" or something equally short and clear. I don't mean changing actual page names, just the name that displays in the info bar at the top of the browser and in search results. I don't know how those are generated, but there must be some piece of code that does it.
  • Have new computers accessing the wiki for the first time see a splash-page that says we are a homebrewing community unaffiliated with WotC before proceeding to their search results. I know that sounds like a porn website entrance wall, but it seems like that's about the only thing that could effectively communicate to a person who really does know nothing about D&D, RPGs, or tabletop gaming.
  • If I actually made that logo and skin for the wiki after getting my personal life back in order, and people liked it, even if only two people bother to comment, will it actually get used? I say this because the whole "support-by-silence" style of consensus really doesn't work for this community. The vast majority of our users are silent and HATE this website. We practically never hear from them.
  • If I hired and paid programmers to make wiki extensions which allow people to vote on pages and showed a history of its score, rather than its current score, would that get used? I ask, because most online communities are moving toward this style of upvote/downvote format. Its kind of becoming the way the social internet operates, and it's going that way because it works.

Personally, I only like the idea of updating the aesthetics of the wiki... But that won't communicate what homebrew is to people who can't imagine such a thing existing. The others are the most reasonable things people have suggested otherwise. --Kydo (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2016 (MST)

At first, I am going to say no. We have good search results because this is a respected site which is worked hard on to make it respectable. "D&D Wiki Fan-Works", first, means nothing, and second is something we have never used to I don't want to get into this realm.
Only an internet newbie would not know that this site is not together with Wizards, so I don't think this is even reasonable to have some splash screens. Its mostly News sites that add this so people get a break from their life by reading the news. D&D pages have nothing to do with this since they are for people's use, and the splash page would probably fail as code.
A logo and skin may be the best way to appraoch your concerns about this topic.
The page score is great, and I already referenced a mediawiki extension which may approach this as a fair system. We are not going to pay for a Mediawiki extension to be programmed since its importance as a new system is like less than 2% right now.
Can you give me a reference to the ReD&Dit discussion you are referencing please? --Green Dragon (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2016 (MST)


Here you go. Enjoy reading pessimistic rants. To be fair, most of them only dislike what the wiki is now, and generally believe that the wiki can improve. Many offer constructive criticism when presented with a person who is willing to listen, but react poorly when you explain the potential complications with their suggestions. I lost my composure a bit somewhere last night before I fell asleep, and had to admit that I am in fact a terribly unpleasant person.
We only have good search results because people link to us from all over the internet. Either people linking to their own creations, or people linking to examples of garbage homebrew they think is funny/infuriating. I've seen more examples of negative referneces than positive, on every single other community. Gamer's Lounge, Reddit, EN World, and Giant in the Playground have had multiple topics dedicated to bashing this website. There's a whole series of topics on Reddit where users take garbage content from here and dissect why it doesn't work. (And then never come back to fix it!!!) We look like the best thing ever to a computer that doesn't understand the context of those links. So when a newbie searches "5e Armor" they get us as the first result. If they generally think the rules of a game are a free thing, (as with almost all other games in existence) and their only knowledge of wikis comes from interactions with wikipedia and wikia, they see our website name and think "Official". It doesn't matter that they're wrong, it's still what they think. It's also widespread. These people are not engrained in the hobby yet. They know NOTHING about the game. The word homebrew means nothing to them. Even if you explained what it meant, a lot of them would look at you in absolute confusion. They'd probably ask, "So, the rules don't matter and people just break the rules all the time? How do you know you're even playing the game? How do you know you're playing right or well?" and it would probably take a fair bit more explanation for it to make sense to them. So, when I say we change the search result name display, all I'm saying is that we need to present the information in a way which, "to a 13-year-old kid who couldn't tell a twink from a twinky, doesn't own a single corebook, and has no money" doesn't look like free official material. Changing the way our search results look would reduce the amount of erroneous access and use of unofficial content. That said, I like our wiki's name. I don't want to change anything about it. I just acknowledge that they are probably right about this. The newbies do currently outnumber the old-hands by a wide margin.
Splash screens, I'm totally against. Like I said, it would make us look like a porn site. However, compared to a homebrew banner, which will likely not be noticed anyways, it would be highly effective at telling a wandering greenhorn that we are not WotC, that our work is unofficial, and that it's all home-made. They might be bweildered and confused by that information, but at least they'll actually recieve the message. Whatever they do after that is their own fault. I do feel that this is a message that should be coming from their DM, but it seems like most DMs these days are totally new to the game themselves, so that message isn't being delivered, and almost nobody is maintaining content-control over their games. People are equating "official" with "valid in play" because they don't realize that isn't necessarily the way RPGs work.
I agree with you about the skin and logo. That's why I have a whole sketchbook full of designs and potential color pallets for it. I could upload my concept work and see what people think of the different looks. However, the complainers have a point: it still won't tell a newbie who can't imagine homebrew as a real thing what we do here. We've discussed including a banner, which would be more communicative, but I'm not sold on it. It'd be hard to make it look good, give a positive spin, be genuinely informative, be unintrusive, still get attention, AND not look like an ad.
Voting extension I'm absolutely in favor of, but it needs to suit our needs as an iterative creative medium. I said I'd pay to have it done, but OK. (I wasn't keen on this idea. It'd cost me a fortune.) I remember you mentioned an extension you approved of, but I don't remember where you said it or which one it was. May I have a link to it? As for it being unimportant, I think you're underestimating how badly people want to communicate, and how much they hate the work that would come with being an active user here. They just want to tell others whether something is good or bad, and sort content based on rating, without being sucked into a whole separate community. That's it. They don't want to become community members, they just want to make practical use of our work. --Kydo (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (MST)
I hope I'm not stepping out of line here, but I've been a semi-active user of varying quality for over four years, and let me tell you: when I joined, I was a 13-year-old kid with no money, no rulebooks and had only played tabletop RPGs for 8 months or so. And yet, I never misunderstood the nature of the wiki. I understood that everything except the SRD/MSRD (there was no 5e SRD yet (I think the 3e SRD was still around, though? I should break out my rulebook and work on that one.)) was unofficial, and that if I wanted something to look good, it was my own responsibility. When I was corrected on my formatting, I took that information and used it. Now, I'm not perfect, or a terribly productive member of the community, but I think it says something, that Kydo also iterates: "They don't want to become community members, they just want to make practical use of our work." So they just want to come around, downvote something they don't like, do nothing about it, then complain that no one fixed it? Meanwhile, xXxD&DP0w3rGam3rxXx over here is upvoting anything broken in his favor.
But back to the issue at hand: why go through all the effort of making the site appear to cater to people that don't understand what it is, and don't care? Clearly, no one on Reddit understands what a wiki is, or that D&D Wiki differs from Wikipedia (which needs to source its information for people to consider a page valid). D&D Wiki respects that no one is better than anyone else, and GD seems not to want to stifle anyone just because they didn't pass The Test first. This isn't open source software, this is homebrew. And no amount of steps to clarify that will affect people who don't know or care what homebrew is.
In short, the people who hate us seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a wiki, D&D, and homebrew are, and those who don't simply don't want to put in the work to make anything worthwhile. Although I understand wanting to minimize hate, the hate is coming from people who frankly have no place here, and don't want to. If I have overstepped my bounds, please inform me, but know that it comes from a place of caring about this site as well.--GamerAim (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (MST)
Nah. Since this kind of stuff affects everyone, it's reasonable for everyone to have a fair say. You are right about the voting system: It could turn into a mess, because there's no way to know what standard people are basing their votes on, and there's no way to enforce a standard either. When we're dealing with homebrew, there are many different properties people could base their judgements off of, and whether someone "just likes it" or not doesn't mean much.
I couldn't care less if the redditors join or not. Some of them are just haters. It'd be nice to see the community continue to grow, but that'll happen with or without them. What concerns me is that most of their complaints aren't about themselves, it's about the sheer number of people who are mislead by our website name and appearance. Just because we figured it out doesn't mean everyone will. In fact, I have a player who is exactly the type of person who wouldn't understand, had he found this website himself. He has asked me why we use a wiki for homebrew before, because to him, a wiki is for facts. In the public mind, wikis are digital encyclopedias. Encyclopedic wikis are the VAST majority today, to the point that non-encyclopedic applications (us) are an almost invisible minority. (We do have an encyclopedic element, the OGC and publications, but that` probably doesn't even account for 5% of the content on the website) With tons of people joining the hobby- people who are far less versed in gaming and the online scene -we have become a distinctly disruptive presence. Beginners have enough to handle trying to learn how to play D&D, let alone learning how to navigate hobby culture. We are so easy to find through generic searches like "5e Races" that it's easier to find us than it is to find the 5th edition basic rules, (if you don't know what the basic rules are) or the WotC website, (if you don't know who makes the game). When I say these people are green, I mean so green they have mint growing out of their ears. They're also starting younger. My 10-year-old cousin picked up the PHB and is already a DM. I didn't even know he played until he asked me about the game. When I told him that Im an admin on D&D Wiki, he asked me how I got a job with Wizards of the Coast. Some of my non-gamer friends think I make beer in my basement when I say homebrew. Any one of them could try the game in the future. Even my dad has a basic knowledge of the game I play, and he's 60. We can look down on people for not knowing any better all we want, but it won't change the fact that our inability to communicate this to people is problematic for hobbysists around the world. I do not want thousands of gamers' first interaction with homebrew to be "that's that crazy website full of broken content that doesn't make sense and pretends to be official." Even a pop-up that says something like, "Welcome to our Homebrew community! Click here to learn more!" the first time a person accesses the website would be better than nothing at all. That could be in a banner too, but like I said, I think itd be very hard to do a universal banner right. --Kydo (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2016 (MST)
I get that, but there's only so much you can do. In fact, it reminds me of learning 3e: it took weeks of constantly making mistakes and being confused before it "clicked" and I finally understood the rules. Personally, I feel that forcing new IPs to take a forced guided tour of the website, its nature, how to make pages, etc. would turn people away. "THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL CONTENT FROM WIZARDS OF THE COAST, WHO MAKES THE GAME AND OWNS THE COPYRIGHT TO IT. OVER TO YOUR LEFT, YOU WILL SEE A POINT-BY-POINT EXPLANATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND HOMEBREW - SIR, PLEASE DON'T WALK AWAY. SIR! SECURITY, THROW THIS MAN OUT!" Actually, maybe someone should make a video explaining this.
I'm not looking down on anyone, just saying we shouldn't make much effort to educate people who aren't likely to listen. They can browse the site for the worst content, but not the FAQ? Or search what "homebrew" is? Why not go to Wikipedia and Wikia and demand that they put a disclaimer informing every visitor what a wiki is? It sounds to me like that'd be best, to have the troublesome websites perform some damage control. And people who can't learn, or aren't willing to, aren't our target audience. If they can't see that we're a homebrew site, then they can't see our standards of editing. I simply don't believe it's worth spending any time trying to compensate for others' misunderstandings, because they are in no way caused by us, so there's never going to be a good way to fix them. I just don't think we can fix a problem we didn't create, at least not without tons of work and restructuring and changing the website to an unrecognizable form. But, I think that's all I've to say on the matter. As long as whatever happens doesn't affect me, I won't interfere.--GamerAim (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2016 (MST)
Look, what I'm saying is that people outside of the community should matter just as much to us, even if they're newbies or have no interest in homebrew, as our own community members do. We should strive to be beneficial to any users of this wiki, especially those who are just visiting for the first time and probably don't know anything about us or what we do. Everyone who accesses this website is a user, even if they aren't a contributor. Our audience should matter just as much as our peers. Without making an effort to even vaguely make sense to them, we are choosing to be nonsense in their reality- like how a person who comes here and makes a race that can "transcend dimensions by spending 10 MP" doesn't make any sense to us. Maybe the suggestions given aren't the solution, but at least they're a start at perhaps inventing what the solution is.
And this isn't just a matter of "their problem" or "our problem". Our users are our problem, whether they are contributors or editors. Any user could one day become a contributor. This is a good thing. We want it to happen. More users means a self-sustaining, healthy, robust, active, and enduring community. A good reputation ensures future users will join in as contributors to replace former contributors at a regular pace, and that User involvement will increase at a rate capable of maintaining content control. Proper self-regulation would improve the reputation of our content as well, allowing good work to be praised for what it is, and encouraging people to actually make use of our content in play. It would give people reasons to contribute already good content, rather than just monkeying around with the interface for a lark. And finally, a good community/content reputation will promote homebrew as a good thing and encourage more people to participate in the most fascinating aspect of our hobby.
This website matters. This community matters. Our reputation matters. We have a significant impact on the hobby, and we need to take responsibility for that. We need to take charge of what we are, because we are currently not very good. --Kydo (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2016 (MST)
Nothing new has happened here, though efforts to redouble on these things is always good, I suppose. I continue to fully argue that having Template:Homebrew (or wherever that other homebrew template someone made is) atop every homebrew page will effectively negate the whole issue. Blue Dragon's busyness (and my own life) have made the effort take months rather than days, but I'm fairly confident I've found a way to achieve this now. If there's consensus, I'll happily go ahead with it, but I tend to find you guys have been a bit reticent. I'm not sure any other approach could fix this problem so easily. While I appreciate it's not the prettiest, we can tweak/alter it with time after we fix what is undoubtedly our biggest problem.
All that being said, I do think you exaggerate the scale of the issue, Kydo. It's undoubtedly our biggest issue, but at the end of the day we are a respected and well used wiki. When I posted my last thread on reddit, I got loads and loads of PMs of support, maybe I should post those.. --SgtLion (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2016 (MST)

information on books[edit]

Hi Green Dragon my name Is Tim (tattoo4u69) I was looking through your site and came across someone that wanted information from a book I don't remember the book or person but if you can find out for me i can give them the information they need, and if anyone needs information from any other book i can email (just need there email address) them the book (i have just about every book ever put out from odnd up to 5th ed.includes 3rd party and magazines also) i play 1st-2nd ed. but do have the books for 3rd-5th ed.

                                                                   thanks:
                                                                   Tim (tattoo4u69)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
pathfinder
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors