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

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)
In case you hadn't seen it yet, I already created a main OGC page. Many red links, yes, but I am filling them in as needed. I can do "OGC:NAME, BOOK (ID)" like OGC:Basic Local Info, Crime and Punishment (3.5e Knowledge Skill Use).
A few questions concerning Knowledge skills: do I write "3.5e Knowledge Skill Use" or "3.5e Knowledge (local) Skill Use"? And for new Knowledge skills, would it be OGC:Law, Crime and Punishment (3.5e Knowledge Skill Use), OGC:Determine Legality, Crime and Punishment (3.5e Knowledge (law) Skill Use), OGC:Knowledge (law), Crime and Punishment (3.5e Skill), or what? I'll hold off on transcribing the skills until I get a response :)--GamerAim (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2016 (MST)

Crime and Punishment is finished, if you want to take a look. I saw you started on it over seven years ago, so I'm sure you're glad to see it under complete sourcebooks after all this time. Now for the 3e SRD...--GamerAim (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's really neat! I've added a barnstar onto your userpage. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

Moving Pages[edit]

Is it possible for you or other admins to move large quantities of pages behind the scenes so as to not crash the website? Last time I tried, the website went down for half an hour at least (though the pages did get moved).--GamerAim (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2016 (MST)

I get this issue too. It is slightly worrying to crash the server repeatedly. I'm guessing Blue Dragon will know how to do a mass move, if you need something specific done. --194.83.236.250 04:16, 8 December 2016 (MST)
I have had issues when making or moving a bunch of pages all at once as well. In particular, I used to get it a lot when I was welcoming new users. Since other people seem to be beating me to the punch nowadays it isn't so bad, but it can still be a problem. --Kydo (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2016 (MST)
If you are referring to the wait time needed to move a page, I don't know where that came from. At some point MW was updated and the database update included a new structure. You are not crashing D&D Wiki, just your connection to it. Unfortunately, I think the update intended the database to only be accessed by large switchboard server switches (or something), which is not on the right scale for most wikis (for Wikipedia, Wikia, etc it is great). If someone could submit a bug to MW with the correct information about it, I think that this would start to address our concerns. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2016 (MST)

April Fools Rule Breaking[edit]

Hello, an admin by the name of Marasmusine has deleted one of my April fools races and is attempting to delete my second April fools race. The problem here is the fact that it is stated in the description of the template that an April Fools race cannot be marked for removal. Their main excuse for deleting the race is that they don't like the joke. Please help. Jimbles (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2016 (MST)

The intent is to permit humor and comedy based content. My wording, unfortunately, goes farther than I had intended. The wiki doesn't need to be 100% serious, but it also shouldn't be an anarchic free-for-all. I feel NFKR (5e Race) is not genuinely a joke. Simply looking at the page, I feel it is inappropriate, because it targets a real human being. Even though you claim to be the person the page targets, I don't think that fits within what this wiki is about. At the very least, it sets a poor precedent. The page itself is a mess. The image was colossal. The traits do not show any understanding of the 5e rules. At best, it is a poor attempt at marketing a YouTube channel. At worst, it's vandalism, a personal attack on someone by an impersonator. Either way, I don't get the joke, and honestly, I don't believe there really is one. GreenDragon, you can disagree and set me straight if you like, but I support Marasmusine's initial assessment on this one. --Kydo (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2016 (MST)
Kydo is right. All the pages on D&D Wiki adhere first to our Help:Policies. If your page is trying to say "N word F******" then this is clearly vandalism. It is best to delete such a page. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2016 (MST)

Oh by the way the youtuber's screen name is NFKRZ. It's pronounced as No and then the f word, not N word and then F word. Kanye West (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2016 (MST)

I don't really know much about this channel at all, and this was just my first attempt at interpreting it. In any case, if you read it I think it is intended to be inappropriate. As a title it makes the whole page take on its inappropriate meaning, but as a word-phrase its less obtrusive and its multiple interpretations for everyone make it so it does not need to be removed. --Green Dragon (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2016 (MST)

Hello GD, can you (or another admin) conclude the deletion proposal on Roman (5e Race) (it's time is up, plus an extra 4 days), as I do not want to appear to be picking on the page or it's editors. Kanye still defends the page but appears to have finished editing it. In deciding wherever to keep the page or delete it, I only ask that you look at it and think if that's the kind of page you want representing the wiki. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2017 (MST)

I have concluded this deletion. Good work on catching this article and making sure it did not seep through this process! --Green Dragon (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2017 (MST)

I never declared that I was finished. Kanye West (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2017 (MST)

You made a few edits on the 25th-26th of December and nothing further, even after extra time was given and after I gave a notification of the deletion expiry. If you are still adamant that what this Dungeons & Dragons wiki needs is a joke page about a YouTuber, I suggest you create it offline or in your userspace, then present it when you think it is complete. Marasmusine (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2017 (MST)
If you want me to post the deleted page onto your userspace I can do that, just let me know please. As soon as you have it presentable, it can be reviewed. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2017 (MST)

D&D Wiki Plays D&D[edit]

So, I've been kicking this idea around, and I'm starting to think it might work. 13 years ago, back when I had just started playing RPGs, I used to participate in a lot of freeform online PBP RP communities. Some of the most fun were the wiki based communities, because we could create reference links from our posts to pages which detailed everything you could want to know about a subject, and we could work together to build the setting on those pages. I know that this style of play can also be done with stat-based RPGs, such as D&D, and I was wondering if hosting such a game on the wiki would be acceptable and/or in the spirit of the wiki. I was planning on using the discussion forum to run it, but I could just as easily make a separate page as, like, a community project or something. In either case, I was thinking something really casual, open-table, public play, with the ability for users to post in their leisure from the comfort of their own anonymity. Obviously, Id need to make at least a few houserules to make some things work. (For example, combat initiative would need to be simultaneous, with players saying what they WANT to do, followed by the DM parsing all of the individual actors actions together in a single scene) Anyways, if you're in favor of the idea, I'm also wondering if you'd be interested in joining in the game. Part of me is also thinking it could be used for a small amount of publicity, encouraging even new players to get involved and participate, or putting up a blog that recaps completed adventures and posting about it on the FB page. That seems kinda cheesy though, I just want to play the game with some new people who I trust. --Kydo (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (MST)

I quite like this, and may even join. I should (finally) have free time again starting soon. It may work better as a help page, so it could also be used to help users get to know D&D better. You may add it to Template:News if it needs more attention (along with onto the help pages). --Green Dragon (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2017 (MST)
You're Invited! --Kydo (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2017 (MST)
Thanks! Let me know if you approve Ra-elope please. I am a little worried about the class, since it may need a few tweaks to be used, but I'll first let you decide. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2017 (MST)

Sk3tz0 delete request[edit]

u suggested to delete my page. i thnk i messed up that page it was linked to my bluebook of the character i created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sk3tz0 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (ECT)‎. Please sign your posts!

Its not in the right place. I see what it is now, and I moved it. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2017 (MST)

3.5e SRD Sidebar[edit]

Is there any chance of having the SRD added back to the sidebar? I know it can be accessed from the OGC page, but it's out of the way and just adds one more click to go through. Plus, newbies might not know to look under there so it's confusing for the inexperienced players.--GamerAim (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2017 (MST)

Well, indents don't seem to work like normal. This has been a tricky issue for a while now, but maybe someone knows of a workaround. Lets see if SgtLion knows of a fix. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2017 (MST)
Oi oi and wot wot guv'na. Lemme see if I got a hand 'ere in these 'ere jolly hockeysticks. I'll have a look and a play. --SgtLion (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2017 (MST)
Nop. Mediawiki sidebar sanitizes all input except the * or the **, so I can't do HTML trickery or something either. Without backend access, the best way to go about this would be sticking a replacement in MediaWiki:Common.js, methinks. I've still got that Homebrew template learn how to implement through that too. --SgtLion (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2017 (MST)

5e SRD Spells[edit]

Why are all the 5e SRD spells listed twice in their spell lists (for example, 5e SRD:Wizard Spell List)? AngelicBahamut (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2017 (MST)

I've wondered this too, and my best guess is "no one knows what's going on with these automatic spell lists" because the 3.5e one seems to be broken and the code looks similar. I've tried deciphering it, but it's above my level. IMO, the SRD either needs it removed or rebuilt in a way that works (if possible). Might try my hand at that tomorrow (should be a simple templated table dpl with list formating?).--GamerAim (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2017 (MST)
I guess I'll have a look at this too and see if I can do anything, while I look at this sidebar. Somebody probably just left an | out of place or somethin'. --SgtLion (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2017 (MST)
The issue is certainly with the the fact that {{#ask .. }} is being used. Reformatting to dpl is indeed the way t'go. --SgtLion (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2017 (MST)
So far this best I've come up with is this. It still needs some fine-tuning as a template before it works the way we need it to (I'll have to see if I can get it to work for specialist wizards, which will likely require adding Category:Specialist Wizard Spells to every such spell) but it can be easily ported to 5e. The main problem is that it doesn't look right. SgtLion: Do you know how we can get it to look like this, but bold the spell names and add a colon after each one? I'm sure using some special format= or inlinetext= magic could do it, and I'll look into that, but the problem with that is leaving the summary untouched. I'll see if I can get format= or inlinetext= to work the way I want and then try putting the summary in a separate column, but that too requires somehow having the dpl display only the summary and not the page name, as well as being as close to the spell page name as I want it. Anyway, it's better than {{#ask .. }} at least, so I'll play around with it more and if nothing can be done, I'll still be content.--GamerAim (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2017 (MST)
I'm not sure I can improve it any more with what I know. It's usable and will work right, but it won't have bolded page names, colon after page names or banded rows. I'm sure some advanced table trickery will do it, but I can't. Sorry :/--GamerAim (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2017 (MST)
Alright. I've found a workaround that'll make {{#ask work, I guess. Though I prefer the way you've set it out for Template:OGCAutoSpells, formatting blows my head off. As I've done here, by adding [[:+]], we restrict the search to the Main namespace. And it sure works well because then it still returns articles in the 5e_SRD: namespace, but only one copy. So the end result is good. --SgtLion (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2017 (MST)
Great that you figured that out. Do you know if dpls have the same type of selection? --Green Dragon (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2017 (MST)
Whelp, thanks for fixing that. I guess I'll replace my pages with a variant of your fixed template later :P--GamerAim (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2017 (MST)
As far as I can see, DPLs are working fine. I mean you can use |namespace=, but they're not buggin' out like {{#ask is, so none of them should need editing. --SgtLion (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2017 (MST)
I am asking about the page count dpls, can we use “|namespace=+“ with them or is it SMW only? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (MST)
So are we using the DPL or the ask function? If DPL, I can can go through and add it to all the SRD, homebrew and OGC pages that used the old, broken, confusing tables.--GamerAim (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2017 (MST)

The SRD spells are still listed twice on the homebrew lists (for example, 5e Wizard Spells). SirSprinkles (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (MST)

That page probably just needs the template replaced, since it's listing SRD spells.--GamerAim (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2017 (MST)

First Angels Vandalism[edit]

Hello Green Dragon,

My name is Alan. 24.8.155.169 is my IP address, so the illegal edits to that page came from my house.

I was absolutely shocked when I saw these edits came from my house. That means one of our party made the edits to cheat at our new campaign. You have my sincerest apologies that this happened.

I now wonder if you can help me figure out who it was. There were 7 people at the house at the time the edits occurred. The public logs to not include the browser user-agent. If you have access to such logs, it would be immensely helpful.

We feel personally betrayed by this cheat. We must expose the cheater.

Thank you

-Alan

I hope that I answered your question by email. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2017 (MST)

5e Background[edit]

Was there ever a Gunslinger background? --Redrum 17:53, 22 February 2017 (MST)

I'm not sure, but I suppose you could reflavour the Duelist (5e Background) into a gunslinger. SirSprinkles (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (MST)

3e SRD?[edit]

I can't remember: was the (incomplete) 3e SRD deleted? I can't seem to find it, but I swear it was there as recently as a few months ago, yet recall something about it being removed. I only noticed because I added the 3e SRD to my to-do list and was going to link to it, but I couldn't find a link. The 3e was going to come in handy whenever I (eventually) started transcribing 3e content, so I was going to do it after I finally finish Crime & Punishment.--GamerAim (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2017 (MST)

No, there has not been a 3e SRD. Maybe you are thinking about a discussion which recommends that we create a conversion formula/method from the 3.5e SRD to the 3e one? I don't recall where this discussion was either, but I do remember it and I think its a great idea. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2017 (MST)
It's at SRD3e:System Reference Document :) It was just de-linked. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (MST)
Thank you! I assumed the namespace convention similar to 5e, tried different things, couldn't find it.--GamerAim (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2017 (MST)

Problem - Template list page full White[edit]

Hi, i'm Cris. To start, excuse me if my english it's not very well, i'm not good with languages. I wanted to report a problem with the Template list page:

3.5 Homebrew -> Creatures -> Templates [[2]]

The page it's completely white. I'm sorry for that, specially because I consult often that page. I hope that you or another admin can solve this problem. In any case, thank you for the attention.

Cris --Alaron1134 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the heads up. Blue Dragon has fixed this problem. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Earworm[edit]

I have a song repeating in my head. The song is Teenage Mutant Kung Fu Chickens by Ray Stevens. --209.97.85.48 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Cannot post anything or create account[edit]

I need help i keep getting an error called cannot create/open socket on a blank white page please help me i want to create a class but this site just stubbornly refuses i think it is because of the captcha or something is there any way around this? or just like give me an account or something so i can just post

Does the error occur just when you try to create a new page or when you make any edit, including preexisting pages? SirSprinkles (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Another user also posted something about this. I'll see what it could be, since it seems that user creation is not working right, and maybe page creation for IPs? --Green Dragon (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
to answer the question all of the above any edits/account creation/new posts all of that jazz just outright refuses to work. i can type things just fine but any page with the captcha or the press here to have computer solve puzzle just will not work. i will do everything i can to cooperate to help solve anything i may be doing wrong, also for reference i have tried the following ways and nothing has worked, Laptop 2 browsers (edge and firefox), phone browser, and ps4 internet browser and none of these have worked thanks for your time

Improved Crossbow Sniper's Source[edit]

Hello Peter,

Got a question for you. In what book can I find the feat Improved Crossbow Sniper? I'm not finding it in the Player's Handbook II, and my DM won't let me take it unless I can show it's from a canon source. Can you help a buddy out?

Matt

If you are referring to the 3.5e feat on D&D Wiki, then I can only hope that you understand the term "Homebrew". We try to make this apparent with descriptive text under D&D Wiki's logo, identifiers, and different layouts from SRD and Homebrew. Thanks for your consideration! --Green Dragon (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wildren[edit]

I will create an account under Vampirloup . But I was looking for a 5th edition of the 3.5 Wildren. It was a great Wall. Not a tank... lol but a good creature. I don't know where to submit suggestions or how it works.

I cannot find what you are referring to. Can you please supply more information? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you are looking for the Wildren from the Planar Handbook. I do remember seeing a 5e conversion of it on this site, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Geodude671 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Bestow Curse[edit]

For some reason, the bestow curse page shows the "[[5e Summary::]]" text. Could you help fix it? SirSprinkles (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

UA Feats[edit]

Hi GD, at 5e SRD talk:Feats you mentioned that we can list the UA feats as part of the SRD, and I'm wondering if that is official. All the UA articles I've looked at show a copyright. Marasmusine (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied to your comment. I was just acting out of experience. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Concern about a page violating D&D Wiki Civility Policies[edit]

In the 5e Homebrew Races category, there is a race called "Redskins" and the article basically details a stereotyped version of Native Americans, with many racist features. The "Flaws" section, for example, says all characters of this race have "Gift Giver" (Player awards accomplishments with gifts) and a second flaw that makes them instantly regret this and try to take it back. The discussion page only says "Racists" and I wasn't sure how to mark the article according to the wiki protocol.

I found a similar page, and I nominated it for deletion. I will do the same with that page shortly. Geodude671 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Its right to add {{delete}} onto that page. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Homebrew vs Official Content[edit]

What ever became of this discussion? What happened to the idea of an unremoveable template distinguishing content as homemade and not official content? I like the idea of this site and it pains me to see its reputation in the toilet. Geodude671 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is still a serious discussion, and we are implementing it in various ways. It is not complete, unfortunately. Do you have a specific point which you would like to discuss in more detail? --Green Dragon (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I was specifically wondering about making it obvious that a page is homebrew when you first lay eyes on it. One of the primary complaints people have with this site is the fact that it is not immediately obvious that something is not official material. New players visit the site and think that everything is official content. Yes, the sidebar does say "user-generated, homebrew, pages" (side note: you don't need the second comma there), but it's off to the side and not super obvious. Also, I'm not sure where I insinuated that that wasn't a serious discussion? Geodude671 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The serious discussion insinuation was my response to your very first question.
The current discussion has ended on the point to look for a better way than a template to distinguish homebrew pages. We are looking for a banner, like that on the SRD pages, that is appealing, unobtrusive, and uses the same text styles. If you could make this, or have a good background or choice of words for all editions, then I would appreciate that. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not much of an artist, but maybe it could say something like: "This content is homebrew. This means that it was created by a user of D&D wiki, and is not official content. Talk to your DM before you use it."
Also, I think we had a misunderstanding with the "serious discussion" bit. When you said "this is still a serious discussion," I took that to mean that you thought I thought that the discussion was a joke (which is where I got confused). From your subsequent comments, it appears that what you actually thought was that I thought the discussion had ended (which indeed I had), when it is actually still ongoing, sort of. Am I correct in that this is what you thought? Geodude671 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe instead of "official content" something like "published on the D&D-market." We need an image of course, which is a central theme of this discussion. As soon as these points are resolved, then we can implement this banner.
Yes, I inferred that you thought the discussion ended abruptly. --Green Dragon (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you not like about saying "official content"? Geodude671 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Its extremely ambiguous. Take the perspective from just the PFSRD. Is this official or not? Take the perspective from sites like DMs Guild. Is this official or not?
What you like about saying "official content"? --Green Dragon (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I assume "official" to mean first-party, but Paizo's first-party supplements are notoriously unbalanced, and who is to say that WotC's is any better? Plus, the only first-party D&D supplement on this site is Unearthed Arcana, which isn't intended to be used in every campaign. A lot of homebrew on this site might be bad (citation needed), but this is a homebrew wiki to begin with, so marking the majority of our pages as not being "official" seems unnecessary to me. There really isn't a big difference between stuff "published on the D&D-market" and still uploaded here. If people don't understand the basic concepts of balance or homebrew, putting up a banner on all of our pages isn't going fix that.--GamerAim (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"If people don't understand the basic concepts of balance or homebrew" The problem people have with this site is that it's not immediately obvious that this is a homebrew wiki. Again, yes, the sidebar does say "user-generated, homebrew, [sic] pages", but it's off to the side and not super obvious. This confusion is compounded when new players who don't know the difference are googling around for information and stumble upon your site because it's usually top 5 results on a lot of different D&D related searches. So these players come to the DM with confusion and questions or they take the information they stumbled upon as official rules, try to implement them in the game and get shut down. All this does is confuses things even more and has even managed to scare away a couple of new players from the game. It needs to be obvious at a glance what is homebrew and what is official. Like, so obvious a braindead pigeon could figure it out.
I really don't see what is so ambiguous about the term "official content." Official content is material published by Wizards of the Coast for use with the Dungeons and Dragons game. DM's Guild is not official content, because WotC didn't create it. If you really hate the term "official content" that much, maybe we could instead say "This content is not legal for use in Dungeons & Dragons organized play"? Would that be less nebulous a concept?
Geodude671 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
But this site is for homebrew. It would be like going into a Tesla dealership and every car has a sign that says "Is not a diesel engine!" This site isn't immediately obvious as an "official" WOTC site either. The "offical content", IMO, is there as a homebrew reference. And again: Unearthed Arcana is official but (probably) unsuitable for organized play.--GamerAim (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The difference there is that it's not obvious to someone that gets here from Google, etc that the wiki is for homebrew. I will say it once more for good measure: IT NEEDS TO BE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS A SITE FOR HOMEBREW. When you go to a Tesla dealership, you know what to expect, from your prior knowledge of car dealerships. Whereas DanDwiki is rather different from most wikis in that it is the home of a lot of fan-created content. When you go to Bulbapedia, a Pokémon wiki, you don't go there for information on my fan-created creature Pokoagumon; you go there to look up the statistics for Venusaur's Mega Evolution, or a synopsis of an anime episode, or other information pertaining to the franchise. You don't care about the fangame Pokémon Uranium, you go there for the games published by Game Freak. People come here for homebrew, yes. But people also come here because they Google "d&d 5e oathbreaker" looking for information on the Paladin subclass from the DMG, and they end up here because a homebrew page has the name "Oathbreaker", which is going to be different from the official one, and it's not immediately obvious that that's not the official Oathbreaker. This causes people to complain about this site on reddit or GitP and then everyone gets whipped up in a furious circlejerk over how "awful" this site is, and causes its reputation to plummet further.
If we want to improve the site's reputation, we need a homebrew template/banner. Or rebrand the site as Guy suggested below, but I don't see that happening. Geodude671 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
D3xbtim.png
I'm saying this mostly in regards to Geodude's points. He's right that it is not super obvious.' I think it would go a long way to mitigating some problems if the logo was replaced with something more like the adjacent image (not literally that, but you get the idea). Even if a user is feeling impatient or have the shortest attention span, on the first visit to a site I think would at least glance at the bright red logo. (Honestly, the first time I visited this site I'm sure I read the logo, but I'm not sure I even read the text beneath it.) - Guy (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Such a change was proposed before, but one of the admins (I think it was sgtlion? Could be wrong) opposed it on the basis that the site doesn't have only homebrew, as it also hosts the SRD. Geodude671 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I might be in the minority opinion, but I don't think that's really sufficient reason to keep it as-is when this site's primary purpose is homebrew and the confusion/complaints still persist. If the issue is that heavy, I'd still say the logo should have something comparable to., "D&D Wiki ft. Homebrew." - Guy (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Since we already included a banner on the SRD pages, including a homebrew banner on the main namespace is correct no matter how you analyze it. This is the route we have already agreed on to take. First, before the exact wording for the banner, we need an image. Please, if someone has one then lets start this! --Green Dragon (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
What size does the image need to be? I'm not much of an artist, but I can try to whip something out. Geodude671 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The image should have the same ratio as File:5e SRD Watermark.png. Even if the image may be a different size, it can be cropped so it's the same. As soon as I have the image I can add the text. I need just an image without text right now.
Clearer text could be “Homebrew Page“ on the left side, and “Homebrew means that it was created by a user of D&D Wiki, and is not official content. Talk to your DM before you use it.“ --Green Dragon (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is there a way to create a banner with a link in it? If so, I think we could whip up a help page on homebrew (though we might have one already) and link it via the banner to shorten the text on the banner itself.--GamerAim (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, I think that any picture should try to be genre-neutral, so as to not be some stereotypical D&D fantasy banner.--GamerAim (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this discussion should be on your talk page, but how about this? I feel that the banner should be visually and thematically distinct from the lighter, more traditional SRD banner, and the space aesthetic gives off an "infinite possibilities" theme that reflects the potential of homebrew creations. A white font should work against it, and would further differentiate it from the SRD banner. Whatever we decide on, I think that it should be something darker like this.--GamerAim (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I like it. I was picturing something more like a frothy mug of ale (homeBREW).
Since this banner is black and the 5e SRD background is white, does that mean that the background here will be black? It could give a cool effect as long as we make the text white-on-black. --Geodude671 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
We will have to ask SirSprinkles if he knows how to change a page's background image by namespace.
I like your image too. For everyone's information, for now, we will have to expect the same background image with this banner. We can, however, change the text styles and color themes for the main namespace. Any ideas here, or just keep it how it is? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks GD for fixing the file link <3 As I was saying before the edit conflict, I can't believe that pun hadn't occurred to me, so if you can find an appropriate picture, please share it. And I don't think we'd change the background. IIRC, the SRD background is already changed to a different tone of white with another font as well. But since the background apparently isn't as good as a banner to distinguish SRD and homebrew, I think the banner should suffice. I'm fine with the current colors and text and I think we should keep them as-is.
P.S. I fully intend to use that space picture with a different text on the OGC namespace ;)--GamerAim (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks for finding this image anyway! What does everyone think about File:Homebrew Watermark.png? Any last minute thoughts? --Green Dragon (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Since I've lost the vote against using "official content" I think it's mostly fine, but: change "Dungeon Master" to "Game Master" since we technically have an (underappreciated) d20 Modern section?--GamerAim (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Since Dungeon Master is more used than Game Master I think we should stick with Dungeon Master. Any other opinions? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue that GM is used more since DM is product identity, but I guess the newbies who need the banner won't know what GM means. Is there any way you could add a black outline around the text? I find it readable, but it might get iffy for some further to the right?--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I should be paying closer attention to these conversations. I'm glad people are pushing forward with the idea of a Homebrew banner. A nice contrasting colour theme like in that image, I really like, because it makes it real noticeable. Though I agree a text outline would do well.
If there's anything technical I can help with, I'm very happy to. --SgtLion (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

You may have noticed that I was in an edit war with user Justsomedndplayers over the content of Arcane_Ring_(5e_Equipment). I am attempting to take the high road and still help make the page better; I attempted to explain my reasoning on the article's talk page, but he feels my contributions are "bias [sic] and unnecessary". I have no clue if I'm being the unreasonable one here. As the owner of the site, you've surely dealt with similar situations before; do you have any advice on dealing with such a situation, where you and another user fundamentally disagree on the content of a page? --Geodude671 (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked him for 1 week since he continued to start edit wars even after being warned of the consequences. Thanks for your dilligence, and since you did not start any of the edit wars you did the right thing. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"6 Homebrew"[edit]

Hello GD, please can I draw your attention to a conversation at User talk:Cedric. This user would like to create a set of pages describing a new homebrew edition of D&D, and also create a lot of glossary pages. I mainly want to know if you are OK with D&D Wiki being used as a platform for people to publish their own RPG systems. Marasmusine (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! It's right to discuss the confusion that project is creating before it grows. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Annoyances and maybe stepping down as admin?[edit]

Yo GD, I've not been really active on dandwiki recently, and I'm kinda undecided as to whether I want to be. Communicating with people to coordinate, improve, or achieve anything is a real big hassle. And I've tried a few times to suggest improving our communication methods, too, but those have also fallen by the wayside.

Though there's plenty of work I could do yet, but a big part of the fun of dandwiki for me is the collaboration part of it. And I'm finding it hard to really do much in that respect, though maybe that's just my own failing. I still love dandwiki and use it constantly, but I'm finding it hard to get myself motivated to do anything for it, because there are fundamental issues for me that aren't getting solved.

I don't know if I'm wording my problems obtusely, but let me know if I am being dumbvague. In light of me not really feeling the "Improve dandwiki!" mood, and I'm not sure we'll ever get around to bettering it for me, I'm thinking there's no real purpose in my staying on as an admin? I'unno, I still love y'all, but I feel confused about what the way forward from here is, gimme yer thoughts. --SgtLion (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that you have been less active in the recent past. Lots of users get very busy, and notice so many pressing things in their lives that they need to pay attention to. That's normal, and from my understanding of the term collaboration: its a positive development. I look at collaboration as a means of working with other people positively.
I dislike reading a user say that he needs to spend his time editing D&D Wiki. In this sense, I feel that your poems and self reflections have improved as an admin. I enjoy reading your work on your user page, even if no one ever tells you. Just this alone, however, is never enough for a person to work with.
I am not certain why you have stopped working with python and bots. maybe your life has made you think too critically about you doing those things? This is why I always tell users that they should only do what they want to do. If you are motivated by python, then you have a drive to work with it. This is what I like to see, but like all other users I cannot tell if are driven to see improvements in collaboration or not. I can't change anything for you here, since I am just someone to collaborate with.
I have to admit that I have not seen any changes in communication methods. I also have not seen any collaboration here. I think I missed the discussions. If you have a link that would be great. This is my current view onto your situation.
With my view in mind, could you explain where exactly your problems are? Where has your motivation stopped? What fundamental issues are your communications pertaining to? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That is entirely a really nice reply, thank you <3. I know you're not a magical solution deity, and I do appreciate the effort a whole lot. I'm not expecting you to wave a wand of solve things at the moment, just discussin' my issues.
For the record, I do still enjoy contributing, and enjoy adminnin', whether its pythonstuff, pathfinder, 3.5e fixing, etc.
But, I think my major issue is that I feel like we don't have the means of communication to come to a conclusion on, well, anything that's more than a simple topic, actually, but most of all, we can't seem to come to conclusions on any proposed improvements.
I understand that's mainly to do with the fact that we're a wiki, and that's fine, but, for instance: I've proposed reopening the chat a few times, on my fourth go proposing it, a few of us seemed to agree on giving it a go and I tried to push forward by messaging 'n emailing BD multiple times, but we've still gotten nowhere because he's busy presumably. But I have no way to really discuss these and other issues effectively, because it requires a lot of back and forth conversation.
That's not a huge issue on its own, per se, but it makes me feel like, much as I really love this site, we can't really move forward and improve on whatever things (or agree on not improving them, at least) when we need to. Because discussion on any problems or ideas that require a decent amount of back 'n forth discussion inevitably die before they reach fruition. And it gives me the feeling that we'll just eventually stagnate, and that any of my contributions would therefore be kind of pointless (though I can't deny, the site's done pretty well for the last forever).
Like I say, I may be entirely wrong on this, and it might all be better the way it is. It's just personally, I've found it more and more frustrating over the years to try discuss any ideas see them reach kind of conclusion.
I hope that explains my concerns decently. It's hard to explain my problems with our communication through that very medium of communication, but hopefully you get the idea. I would like to keep adminning and contributing on dandwiki, I just find these problems too frustrating for me to think it's worthwhile, at the moment. --SgtLion (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I find your work with Pathfinder remarkable, and want to applaud you for that. It's taking a hard part of the structure and putting it into a useful context.
I have left the discussion for a chat room open for something that works.
Do not expect to get any help from Blue Dragon on this. How he would (likely) prefer his status to be, would be as one that references his editing status on D&D Wiki. His assistance is spend in other means for the upkeep and wellbeing of D&D Wiki.
I am a user who would prefer a chat room. Of course, I continue to stress that a chat room connected to our user accounts is best. So, our user names are real. Our actions in the chat room, thus, carry more weight.
There is also the technical side to a chat room. If you can give me the documentation for a chat setup then I can get it implemented. Don't expect long chats with Blue Dragon since in the end I will work the result out with him. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You could try setting up a Discord server? --Geodude671 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We tried that months ago, but since GD just said he wanted one integrated with the wiki, I closed it today (it's technically still there, but I kicked everyone and removed the invite). No one even used it except two people I didn't recognize.--GamerAim (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
A connection with our usernames or for IPs is very important for me. I recall that the Discord server required a user-creation process for the IRC chat. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying a chat would solve all issues, but I do think it could be meaningfully helpful.
Well, as we have had The Tavern before, I was rather under the impression that we had all the technical knowledge and code we needed. As the last time we discussed the idea of a chat, you asked me to liase with Blue Dragon to implement it.
It's extremely simple to get an embedded IRC client to any free server, where wiki users can register their usernames and IPs can just join without registering. Just a snippet of HTML code will achieve it. If that's all that is needed, I can provide that in, like, five minutes, just say the word.
If you really want to host an in-house IRC server that does an automatic linking in of users with our wiki usernames (which I think is what The Tavern did?). I'm not sure we can do that anymore without an in-depth custom job, as the IRC extension for MediaWiki is no longer supported. But if it was absolutely necessary, I could investigate this idea further.
Obviously, this is all I can do without server access. I'm happy to provide any technical information or help, but it does take backend work to actually implement any of it. --SgtLion (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, anyone could change their name at the Tavern, and no IP information was included with it. In addition, a user just wrote in a username they wanted to use. This must be a very massive misunderstanding at this point, if a user like yourself was under this impression.
If you have the technical information for a chat room that works based on user information from MediaWiki then when you give it to me I can start to get it implemented. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
At least with Discord, everyone has a unique user ID and it wouldn't be that difficult to manually verify people. I already had a system in place that restricted what people who weren't flagged as verified could do. I understand that it's not ideal, and I won't bring it up again if you still don't like the idea, but if people think that it's better than nothing, then I think it's worth trying? And if things get too uncomfortable, it's easy to just trash it and forget it ever happened (certainly easier than some in-site extensions, I'd think), so I'm not sure what we have to lose. Of course, you'd need to find a way to get more than 3 people in there for it to be worthwhile.--GamerAim (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to slip in long enough to say that although a Discord sever might not be perfect, I still think it's better than any alternative of which I'm aware (and better than nothing). I would have joined a Discord server had I been active at the time and known about it. - Guy (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't remember the Tavern all that well, so I was only working off my vague memories.
I think as GD said, Discord's requirement to set up an account and, in my opinion, not having it as an embedded widget work against it. We can use a super-simple IRC widget to set up a chat where people can register their wiki usernames, but that also allows IPs to join straight up and allows users to access it from a dandwiki page, so IPs can get there in a couple clicks.
If this automatic linking in to MediaWiki user information is a requirement for a chat, it seems nigh impossible, as far as I can make out. But as GamerAim states, just manually approving people would be a very minor workload and have the same effect. --SgtLion (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would Extension:MediaWikiChat and Extension:WebChat work for everyone? These are the sorts of extensions I was talking about, but was not able to find until now. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't that make me feel like a silly-o. For some reason I discounted non-IRC options. I'm okay with us trying out either of those. --SgtLion (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I also discounted them, assuming there was nothing out there for wikis. Good find, GD! Looking forward to trying them out in the Near™ future.--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, part of the problem getting The Tavern up and running again is me being oversubscribed / generally too busy. I've unfortunately had to only really work on things when a problem gets big enough—and—it appears that this problem is both big enough and GD proposed an easy solution. I went ahead and installed MediaWikiChat (Special:Chat). If you would all rather try the alternative, or another (easy to setup) solution, please let me know. Also, I believe SgtLion and myself talked a bit back about SgtLion getting backend access. I think that's a good idea and could help the wiki be upgraded sooner / etc. I'll be happy to pick up where we left off going down that path. If you are still up for it SgtLion, please reach out! Thanks, — Blue Dragon (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been acutely aware that you're a pretty busy guy, so it's all cool as far as I'm concerned. I'll give the MediaWikiChat a try out, thanks for sorting that! I am still interested in backend access, hopefully I can help some with it, I'll pop ya' a message if y'don't first. --SgtLion (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OGC Namespace[edit]

The old conversation was long and kind of, well, old, so I figured I'd let it get chucked into an archive sooner rather than later. I was wondering about the pending status of the OGC namespace? I know there's not two sourcebooks under it, and won't be for awhile since I have to finish the 3e SRD first, but it's integral to making sure the DPLs format links correctly, or else we get "OGC:" at the beginning of every link, cluttering the screen, making it ugly and harder to read, and making it harder to see if the DPLs have the right settings. So it's far from necessary, but it does prevent things from looking nice (in an area that I admit no one except me and you have probably browsed).

P.S. Did you settle on that space image for the non-SRD headers? If so, we'll need to pool ideas for an ideal text (unless you've decided on one) for it.--GamerAim (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have asked Blue Dragon about the namespace. Expect it to be added (soon). I wonder if you added mostly complete sourcebooks, like Path of Shadow, into the OGC structure it that would shed more light into it.
Sorry about not getting the image and text together sooner. It slipped my mind. I have responded to the discussion above. --Green Dragon (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! TBH, my main concern is if I'll have to move them to the OGC namespace, as the more pages I add, the more work it is later. If that's not the case, then my workload remains the same. The thing with adding mostly complete sourceboks is that even if I only did the existing pages, I have to go fact-check everything, hyperlink it if need be, and such. I'll look into it, but right now my planned order is 3e SRD, Quintessential Monk (since I deleted the entire thing for mass copyright infringement), Path of Shadow, Advanced Player's Handbook. Obviously, that may be years in the future before it's finished, IDK. I just don't want to have to move everything to the new namespace :P--GamerAim (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It pleases me to hear you state your ambitions. I have a plea for you with the 3e SRD. My plea is for you to change the pages to the namespace “3e SRD“ before lots more pages get added. This should help organize the SRD namespaces. Thanks! --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That should be under 20 pages, so it's good you caught me before I went too far! I too think it's better your way :)--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Ban[edit]

So you banned me for removing the templates off my own work. then you say i was banned for starting an editing war. that is false. even after i was banned temp, the edit war continued. Geodude startws the editing war, while im trying to keep my creations in line with what i view the item should have. now im going to edit the arcane ring i made back. but i will however reduce its strength. i do not want it to have legendary rarity, nor attunement. additionally i will place a template for that it may deviate from 5e standards. so that way its own rules do not have to align with srd. and thus should not be edited any further —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justsomedndplayers (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

When you add {{Design Disclaimer}} that will make your edits make some sense. I gave you a very light ban for starting an edit war, which you did on multiple occasions by reverting constructive edits without any valid reason. And this over and over again without any reason. The templates added to all the pages in question are constructive edits. Removing them in an edit war got you banned. Try other methods, like using the talk page, or replacing templates with {{Design Disclaimer}}. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And to reiterate: I understand your frustration, but homebrew pages aren't really the best place to post passive-aggressive comics. I think we have a real template telling people to see the talk page first; if you need it, tell me and I'll find it :)--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You also need to be prepared for other people editing your pages. The Design Disclaimer is for pages that deviate from design standards in a planned way, not for tacking onto something to excuse poor design. For example, Arcane Ring spends a lot of time describing how much it costs, but magic item costs and creation are a campaign-level consideration, as determined by the DM. Someone could quite reasonably edit the page removing such information. Marasmusine (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
pathfinder
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors