https://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Michaellai&feedformat=atomD&D Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T11:27:40ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.8https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Jedi/Sith_(5e_Class)&diff=1596858Jedi/Sith (5e Class)2022-04-29T23:57:13Z<p>Michaellai: /* Jedi/Sith */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Copyright Disclaimer|owner=The Walt Disney Company|franchise=Star Wars}}<br />
== Jedi/Sith ==<br />
<br />
There are energy fields created by all living things, known as... The Force... Some people... wield this power, such as, the ancient Je'daii, but in more modern times, the Jedi, and the Sith. (Realise that this class will not fit most Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, and you must ask your Dungeon Master before using this class.)<br />
<br />
=== Creating a Jedi/Sith ===<br />
When creating a Jedi/Sith, you must first ask yourself, will you be a Jedi? A Sith? Or a Grey Jedi? Next, why? What happened to your character that causes them to devote themselves to those teachings? When did you discover your force sensitivity?<br />
<br />
;Quick Build<br />
You can make a Jedi/Sith quickly by following these suggestions. First, {{5a|Wis}} should be your highest ability score, followed by {{5a|Dex}}. Second, choose the Outlander background.<br />
<br />
{{5e Class Features<br />
|name=Jedi/Sith<br />
|summary=A powerful warrior, who using a strange mystic energy, known as, The Force.<br />
|hd=10<br />
|spellcasting=<br />
|armor=Shields<br />
|weapons=Simple weapons, martial weapons, lightsabers( favoured weapon )<br />
|tools=None<br />
|saves={{5a|Wis}}, {{5a|Int}}<br />
|skills=Choose 4 from the following. {{5s|Athletics}}, {{5s|Acrobatics}}, {{5s|Animal Handling}}, {{5s|Arcana}}, {{5s|Deception}}, {{5s|History}}, {{5s|Insight}}, {{5s|Investigation}}, {{5s|Medicine}}, {{5s|Perception}}, {{5s|Persuasion}}, {{5s|Religion}}, {{5s|Stealth}}<br />
|item1a=a melee martial weapon<br />
|item1b=a ranged martial weapon<br />
|item1c=a Lightsaber <br />
|item2a=Jedi robes<br />
|item2b=Sith robes<br />
|item2c=<br />
|item3a=Jedi holocron<br />
|item3b=Sith holocron<br />
|item3c=Grey Jedi holocron<br />
|item4a=Explorer's Pack<br />
|item4b=Scholar's Pack<br />
|item4c=Dungeoneer's Pack<br />
|wealth=150 gp<br />
|classfeatures1={{inpage|Unarmoured Defence}}, {{inpage|Force Powers}}, {{inpage|Holocron}}<br />
|classfeatures2={{inpage|Force Jump}} <br />
|classfeatures3={{inpage|Order Path}} <br />
|classfeatures4={{inpage|Lightsaber Form}}<br />
|classfeatures5={{inpage|Extra Attack}} (x1)<br />
|classfeatures6=Order Path Feature<br />
|classfeatures7={{inpage|Force Telepathy}}<br />
|classfeatures8=<br />
|classfeatures9={{inpage|Mind trick}}<br />
|classfeatures10=Order Path Feature<br />
|classfeatures11={{inpage|Extra Attack}} (x2)<br />
|classfeatures12=<br />
|classfeatures13={{inpage|The Force Is With Me}}<br />
|classfeatures14={{inpage|Aura of Hope}}<br />
|classfeatures15={{inpage|Improved Unarmoured Defence}}<br />
|classfeatures16=<br />
|classfeatures17={{inpage|Power Mastery}}<br />
|classfeatures18={{inpage|One With The Force}}<br />
|classfeatures19=<br />
|classfeatures20=Order Path Feature, {{inpage|Natural Speed}}<br />
<br />
|extrasonleft=2<br />
|extra1_name=Force Points<br />
|extra1_1=5<br />
|extra1_2=5<br />
|extra1_3=10<br />
|extra1_4=10<br />
|extra1_5=15<br />
|extra1_6=15<br />
|extra1_7=20<br />
|extra1_8=20<br />
|extra1_9=25<br />
|extra1_10=25<br />
|extra1_11=30<br />
|extra1_12=30<br />
|extra1_13=35<br />
|extra1_14=35<br />
|extra1_15=40<br />
|extra1_16=40<br />
|extra1_17=45<br />
|extra1_18=45<br />
|extra1_19=50<br />
|extra1_20=50<br />
|extra2_name=Force Powers<br />
|extra2_1=2<br />
|extra2_2=3<br />
|extra2_3=4<br />
|extra2_4=5<br />
|extra2_5=6<br />
|extra2_6=7<br />
|extra2_7=8<br />
|extra2_8=9<br />
|extra2_9=10<br />
|extra2_10=11<br />
|extra2_11=12<br />
|extra2_12=13<br />
|extra2_13=14<br />
|extra2_14=15<br />
|extra2_15=15<br />
|extra2_16=16<br />
|extra2_17=16<br />
|extra2_18=17<br />
|extra2_19=17<br />
|extra2_20=18<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Unarmoured Defence ====<br />
<br />
At 1st level, you have used your connection to the force to gain some precognition, knowing when your enemies will strike, while you are wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + {{5a|Dex}} modifier + your {{5a|Wis}} modifier.<br />
<br />
==== Force Powers ====<br />
At 1st level, you have the ability to use something known as "The Force". You use it mainly through abilities called Force Powers. At 1st level you choose 2 Force Powers, gaining more as you level up, they are detailed [[Force Powers (5e Other)|here]]. Using these Force Powers costs you Force Points (Shortened to FP) (Note, Force Powers that require one Action to activate, count as an Attack Action, meaning, you can take extra attacks after using one, or, you could use one as an extra attack)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Force Save DC''' 8 + {{5a|Wis}} modifier + {{5e|Proficiency Bonus}}<br />
<br />
'''Force Attack Modifier''' {{5a|Wis}} modifier + {{5e|Proficiency Bonus}}<br />
<br />
==== Force Points ====<br />
At 1st level, you have a pool of Force Points (FP), of which you expend to use Force Powers and certain other abilities. You have a certain amount of Force Points shown on the Jedi/Sith Table. You regain your Force Points after a short or long rest.<br />
<br />
==== Holocron ====<br />
At first level, you have a Jedi or Sith's Holocron, you received this, from either luck, or, it was given to you by a Jedi or Sith. This Holocron shows you many things, such as, how to build a Lightsaber, and many of the Force's secrets. There are six kinds of Lightsabers. The cost shows how much gold you must spend in materials to craft the Lightsaber. It takes one hour of total concentration and 5 force point to create your lightsaber.<br />
<br />
{|class="5e" {{#vardefine:odd|0}}<br />
!Weapon ||Damage ||Properties ||Weight ||Cost ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Lightsaber ||1d10 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Versatile (1d12) ||2 lbs. ||150 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Shortsaber ||1d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light ||1.5 lbs. ||100 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Saberstaff ||2d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Two-Handed ||2.5 lbs. ||200 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Saberpike ||1d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Versatile (1d10), Reach ||3 lbs. ||175 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Lightwhip ||1d6 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Reach ||1.5 lb. ||150 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Lightdagger ||1d6 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Thrown(Range 20/60) ||1 lb. ||100 ||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Force Jump ====<br />
At 2nd level, when you jump/high jump, you can spend a force point to jump twice your normal jump height, if you used this feature, you do not take fall damage from that fall. You can also use this ability while falling to lessen your fall, so you take 0 fall damage.<br />
<br />
==== Order Path ====<br />
At 3rd level, you chose an Order Path. Choose between (If your Holocron is that of a Jedi), Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, and Jedi Sentinel, or (If your Holocron is that of a Sith), Sith Sorcerer, Sith Marauder, and Sith Assassin, all detailed at the end of the class description. Your choice grants you features at 3rd level and again at 6th, 10th, and 20th.<br />
<br />
==== Lightsaber Form ====<br />
At 4th level, you choose one Lightsaber Form to focus on. To gain the benefit of any of these forms, you must be wielding a type of Lightsaber.<br />
<br />
;Shii-Cho<br />
You practiced Form I: Shii-Cho, based on sweeping offensive movements, used to disarm an opponent. When you hit with a weapon attack, you can choose to forgo the damage, and instead disarm your opponent, their weapon falls 5 feet away from them, to their left or right (Your choice)<br />
<br />
;Makashi<br />
You practiced Form II: Makashi, based on dueling, and precise quick attacks. You gain a +1 bonus to all rolls to hit with a Lightsaber, this bonus is added last, if the total is 20 or higher because of this feature, it is treated as a natural 20.<br />
<br />
;Soresu<br />
You practiced form III: Soresu, based on defense, often against projectiles. You gain a +1 bonus to your AC, and if you are attack by a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to roll an acrobatics check against the attacker's attack roll, if you beat it, the attack is reflected away from you.<br />
<br />
;Ataru<br />
You practiced form IV: Ataru, based on fast, acrobatic attacks. Upon taking this form, you gain a +5 bonus to your movement speed. If you move at least 10 <br />
feet on your turn, and then attack an enemy, you have advantage on the attack.<br />
<br />
;Shien/Djem So<br />
You practiced form V: Shien/Djem So, a variant of form III. When being attacked, you can use your reaction to roll an acrobatics check against the attacker's attack roll. If you fail, the attack applies normally, but if you succeed, and the enemy was using a melee weapon, you take an opportunity attack, dealing half damage (Round down). If you succeeded, and the enemy was using a ranged weapon, you reflect the attack back onto the enemy, dealing half damage (Round down).<br />
<br />
;Niman<br />
You practiced form VI: Niman, a form based on mixing both force abilities, and quick agile attacks. If you used '''Force Push''', '''Force Pull''', or '''Force Repulse''', you can take the attack action directly after as a part of the same action, by expending 1 extra force point.<br />
<br />
;Juyo/Vaapad<br />
You practiced form VII: Juyo/Vaapad, a form based on using your emotions to fuel your attacks, and deal more damage. This form gives you a +2 to all Lightsaber damage.<br />
<br />
==== Ability Score Increase ====<br />
<br />
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can't increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.<br />
<br />
==== Extra Attack ====<br />
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class.<br />
<br />
==== Force Telepathy ====<br />
At 7th level, you can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language. The creature can respond to you. You can communicate to multiple creatures at once by spending force points, you must spend 1 for every additional creature.<br />
<br />
==== Force Persuade ====<br />
At 9th level, whenever you make a Skill Check using {{5a|Cha}}, you can spend FP to give you a bonus to your roll. Every 1 FP you spend, you gain a +1 to your roll, you can use this before or after rolling, but it must be used before you know the outcome, or, if you already know the outcome, it costs 2FP for every +1 bonus.<br />
<br />
==== The Force Is With You ====<br />
At 13th level, when you roll a Saving Throw, you can spend 5 FP to give yourself advantage on the roll. (This ability cannot stack with itself)<br />
<br />
==== Aura of Hope ====<br />
At 14th level, whenever you or a friendly creature within 15 feet of you must make a saving throw, the creature gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to your {{5a|Wis}} modifier (with a minimum bonus of +1). Your allies within this range can also not be Frightened. You must be conscious to grant this bonus.<br />
<br />
==== Improved Unarmoured Defense ====<br />
At 15th level, you have used your connection to the force to gain some precognition, knowing when your enemies will strike, while you are wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + your {{5a|Dex}} modifier + your {{5a|Wis}} modifier + half your proficiency bonus.<br />
<br />
==== Power Mastery ====<br />
At 17th level, you may choose one force power. You can use it without consuming Force Points, as if you had spend the minimum amount of force points on it. This power can be changed when you level up.<br />
<br />
==== One With The Force ====<br />
At 18th level, projectiles (I.E. arrows, bolts, bullets, laser blasts, etc.) have disadvantage on attack rolls against you.<br />
<br />
==== Natural Speed ====<br />
At 20th level, your Speed increases by 10, and you add your {{5a|Wis}} modifier to initiative rolls.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Guardian ===<br />
<br />
Concentrating on martial training and combat,[3] Guardians engaged in combat more than either of the other two classes of Jedi.<br />
<br />
;Improved Critical<br />
Starting at 3rd level, your attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.<br />
<br />
;Jumping Attack<br />
At 6th level, as an action, you can expend 4 FP to jump to an enemy within 15 feet of you and immediately take the attack action as a part of the same action.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Extra Attack<br />
Beginning at 20th level, you can attack four times, instead of three, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Consular ===<br />
<br />
Refraining from drawing their lightsabers except as a measure of last resort, Consulars spent a great deal of time studying the mysteries of the Force.<br />
<br />
;Diplomat<br />
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the {{5s|Persuasion}} and {{5s|Insight}} skills. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.<br />
<br />
;Force Adept<br />
Starting at 6th level, all Force Powers have a -1 Force Point cost.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Power Speed Up<br />
At 20th level, when using a Force Power that's casting time is 1 Action, you can expend extra FP equal to the Force Power's normal FP cost to make the casting time 1 Bonus Action instead.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Sentinel ===<br />
<br />
Sentinels blended both schools of teaching and amplified them with a series of non-Force skills<br />
<br />
;Force Strike<br />
At 3rd level, you can use the force to more accurately aim your attacks. Before you know the outcome of the roll, you can expend 1 FP to add a +1 bonus to the roll. (You can spend more to increase the bonus, it is always a 1:1 ratio.)<br />
<br />
;Evasion<br />
Beginning at 6th level, when you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Reliable Talent<br />
By 20th level, whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Sorcerer ===<br />
<br />
A Sith sorcerer or sorceress was an individual who was proficient in the arts of Sith magic, using spells, talismans, or incantations to focus the power of the dark side. <br />
<br />
;Sith Alchemy<br />
At 3rd level, You gain one Warlock Cantrip, and one Warlock spell (Up to 2nd level), with which you gain one 2nd Level spell slot to cast it with. {{5a|Wis}} is your spellcasting attribute for these spells.<br />
<br />
;Sith Alchemy Improved<br />
At 6th level, you gain another Warlock Cantrip, and another Warlock spell (Up to 3rd level), your 2nd level spell slot is taken away, and replaced by two 3rd level spell slots. <br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Unlimited Power<br />
At 20th level, whenever you attack using a force power (Or your spells), if it hits and deals damage, it also adds your proficiency modifier to the damage.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Marauder ===<br />
<br />
Sith Marauders were fueled by hatred, rage, and cruelty, and used it to defeat their opponents.<br />
<br />
;Savage Attacker<br />
At 3rd level, when you attack an enemy with a weapon (The force power Lightsaber Throw counts), you deal 1d4 extra damage.<br />
<br />
;Survivor<br />
At 6th level, when you take damage, you can decrease the damage taken by 1d12, you can use this once every short or long rest.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Extra Attack<br />
Beginning at 20th level, you can attack four times, instead of three, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Assassin ===<br />
<br />
The Sith assassins were unique because they preferred to ambush their intended prey from the shadows rather than engaging them in open combat.<br />
<br />
;Undetected<br />
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the Sleight of Hand and Stealth skills. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.<br />
<br />
;Stealth Attack<br />
At 6th level, if you have advantage on an attack roll, you may spend 1 FP to increase the damage dealt by 1d4. (You can spend more to increase it further.)<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Blindsense<br />
Starting at 20th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 20 feet of you.<br />
<br />
=== Multiclassing ===<br />
<br />
'''Prerequisites.''' To qualify for multiclassing into the Jedi/Sith class, you must meet these prerequisites: {{5a|Wis}} of 13 or higher.<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{5e Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Jedi/Sith_(5e_Class)&diff=1596857Jedi/Sith (5e Class)2022-04-29T23:56:09Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Copyright Disclaimer|owner=The Walt Disney Company|franchise=Star Wars}}<br />
== Jedi/Sith ==<br />
<br />
There is a mysterious energy deep within the Weave, known as... The Force... Some people... wield this power, such as, the ancient Je'daii, but in more modern times, the Jedi, and the Sith. (Realise that this class will not fit most Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, and you must ask your Dungeon Master before using this class.)<br />
<br />
=== Creating a Jedi/Sith ===<br />
When creating a Jedi/Sith, you must first ask yourself, will you be a Jedi? A Sith? Or a Grey Jedi? Next, why? What happened to your character that causes them to devote themselves to those teachings? When did you discover your force sensitivity?<br />
<br />
;Quick Build<br />
You can make a Jedi/Sith quickly by following these suggestions. First, {{5a|Wis}} should be your highest ability score, followed by {{5a|Dex}}. Second, choose the Outlander background.<br />
<br />
{{5e Class Features<br />
|name=Jedi/Sith<br />
|summary=A powerful warrior, who using a strange mystic energy, known as, The Force.<br />
|hd=10<br />
|spellcasting=<br />
|armor=Shields<br />
|weapons=Simple weapons, martial weapons, lightsabers( favoured weapon )<br />
|tools=None<br />
|saves={{5a|Wis}}, {{5a|Int}}<br />
|skills=Choose 4 from the following. {{5s|Athletics}}, {{5s|Acrobatics}}, {{5s|Animal Handling}}, {{5s|Arcana}}, {{5s|Deception}}, {{5s|History}}, {{5s|Insight}}, {{5s|Investigation}}, {{5s|Medicine}}, {{5s|Perception}}, {{5s|Persuasion}}, {{5s|Religion}}, {{5s|Stealth}}<br />
|item1a=a melee martial weapon<br />
|item1b=a ranged martial weapon<br />
|item1c=a Lightsaber <br />
|item2a=Jedi robes<br />
|item2b=Sith robes<br />
|item2c=<br />
|item3a=Jedi holocron<br />
|item3b=Sith holocron<br />
|item3c=Grey Jedi holocron<br />
|item4a=Explorer's Pack<br />
|item4b=Scholar's Pack<br />
|item4c=Dungeoneer's Pack<br />
|wealth=150 gp<br />
|classfeatures1={{inpage|Unarmoured Defence}}, {{inpage|Force Powers}}, {{inpage|Holocron}}<br />
|classfeatures2={{inpage|Force Jump}} <br />
|classfeatures3={{inpage|Order Path}} <br />
|classfeatures4={{inpage|Lightsaber Form}}<br />
|classfeatures5={{inpage|Extra Attack}} (x1)<br />
|classfeatures6=Order Path Feature<br />
|classfeatures7={{inpage|Force Telepathy}}<br />
|classfeatures8=<br />
|classfeatures9={{inpage|Mind trick}}<br />
|classfeatures10=Order Path Feature<br />
|classfeatures11={{inpage|Extra Attack}} (x2)<br />
|classfeatures12=<br />
|classfeatures13={{inpage|The Force Is With Me}}<br />
|classfeatures14={{inpage|Aura of Hope}}<br />
|classfeatures15={{inpage|Improved Unarmoured Defence}}<br />
|classfeatures16=<br />
|classfeatures17={{inpage|Power Mastery}}<br />
|classfeatures18={{inpage|One With The Force}}<br />
|classfeatures19=<br />
|classfeatures20=Order Path Feature, {{inpage|Natural Speed}}<br />
<br />
|extrasonleft=2<br />
|extra1_name=Force Points<br />
|extra1_1=5<br />
|extra1_2=5<br />
|extra1_3=10<br />
|extra1_4=10<br />
|extra1_5=15<br />
|extra1_6=15<br />
|extra1_7=20<br />
|extra1_8=20<br />
|extra1_9=25<br />
|extra1_10=25<br />
|extra1_11=30<br />
|extra1_12=30<br />
|extra1_13=35<br />
|extra1_14=35<br />
|extra1_15=40<br />
|extra1_16=40<br />
|extra1_17=45<br />
|extra1_18=45<br />
|extra1_19=50<br />
|extra1_20=50<br />
|extra2_name=Force Powers<br />
|extra2_1=2<br />
|extra2_2=3<br />
|extra2_3=4<br />
|extra2_4=5<br />
|extra2_5=6<br />
|extra2_6=7<br />
|extra2_7=8<br />
|extra2_8=9<br />
|extra2_9=10<br />
|extra2_10=11<br />
|extra2_11=12<br />
|extra2_12=13<br />
|extra2_13=14<br />
|extra2_14=15<br />
|extra2_15=15<br />
|extra2_16=16<br />
|extra2_17=16<br />
|extra2_18=17<br />
|extra2_19=17<br />
|extra2_20=18<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Unarmoured Defence ====<br />
<br />
At 1st level, you have used your connection to the force to gain some precognition, knowing when your enemies will strike, while you are wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + {{5a|Dex}} modifier + your {{5a|Wis}} modifier.<br />
<br />
==== Force Powers ====<br />
At 1st level, you have the ability to use something known as "The Force". You use it mainly through abilities called Force Powers. At 1st level you choose 2 Force Powers, gaining more as you level up, they are detailed [[Force Powers (5e Other)|here]]. Using these Force Powers costs you Force Points (Shortened to FP) (Note, Force Powers that require one Action to activate, count as an Attack Action, meaning, you can take extra attacks after using one, or, you could use one as an extra attack)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Force Save DC''' 8 + {{5a|Wis}} modifier + {{5e|Proficiency Bonus}}<br />
<br />
'''Force Attack Modifier''' {{5a|Wis}} modifier + {{5e|Proficiency Bonus}}<br />
<br />
==== Force Points ====<br />
At 1st level, you have a pool of Force Points (FP), of which you expend to use Force Powers and certain other abilities. You have a certain amount of Force Points shown on the Jedi/Sith Table. You regain your Force Points after a short or long rest.<br />
<br />
==== Holocron ====<br />
At first level, you have a Jedi or Sith's Holocron, you received this, from either luck, or, it was given to you by a Jedi or Sith. This Holocron shows you many things, such as, how to build a Lightsaber, and many of the Force's secrets. There are six kinds of Lightsabers. The cost shows how much gold you must spend in materials to craft the Lightsaber. It takes one hour of total concentration and 5 force point to create your lightsaber.<br />
<br />
{|class="5e" {{#vardefine:odd|0}}<br />
!Weapon ||Damage ||Properties ||Weight ||Cost ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Lightsaber ||1d10 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Versatile (1d12) ||2 lbs. ||150 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Shortsaber ||1d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light ||1.5 lbs. ||100 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Saberstaff ||2d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Two-Handed ||2.5 lbs. ||200 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Saberpike ||1d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Versatile (1d10), Reach ||3 lbs. ||175 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Lightwhip ||1d6 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Reach ||1.5 lb. ||150 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Lightdagger ||1d6 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Thrown(Range 20/60) ||1 lb. ||100 ||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Force Jump ====<br />
At 2nd level, when you jump/high jump, you can spend a force point to jump twice your normal jump height, if you used this feature, you do not take fall damage from that fall. You can also use this ability while falling to lessen your fall, so you take 0 fall damage.<br />
<br />
==== Order Path ====<br />
At 3rd level, you chose an Order Path. Choose between (If your Holocron is that of a Jedi), Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, and Jedi Sentinel, or (If your Holocron is that of a Sith), Sith Sorcerer, Sith Marauder, and Sith Assassin, all detailed at the end of the class description. Your choice grants you features at 3rd level and again at 6th, 10th, and 20th.<br />
<br />
==== Lightsaber Form ====<br />
At 4th level, you choose one Lightsaber Form to focus on. To gain the benefit of any of these forms, you must be wielding a type of Lightsaber.<br />
<br />
;Shii-Cho<br />
You practiced Form I: Shii-Cho, based on sweeping offensive movements, used to disarm an opponent. When you hit with a weapon attack, you can choose to forgo the damage, and instead disarm your opponent, their weapon falls 5 feet away from them, to their left or right (Your choice)<br />
<br />
;Makashi<br />
You practiced Form II: Makashi, based on dueling, and precise quick attacks. You gain a +1 bonus to all rolls to hit with a Lightsaber, this bonus is added last, if the total is 20 or higher because of this feature, it is treated as a natural 20.<br />
<br />
;Soresu<br />
You practiced form III: Soresu, based on defense, often against projectiles. You gain a +1 bonus to your AC, and if you are attack by a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to roll an acrobatics check against the attacker's attack roll, if you beat it, the attack is reflected away from you.<br />
<br />
;Ataru<br />
You practiced form IV: Ataru, based on fast, acrobatic attacks. Upon taking this form, you gain a +5 bonus to your movement speed. If you move at least 10 <br />
feet on your turn, and then attack an enemy, you have advantage on the attack.<br />
<br />
;Shien/Djem So<br />
You practiced form V: Shien/Djem So, a variant of form III. When being attacked, you can use your reaction to roll an acrobatics check against the attacker's attack roll. If you fail, the attack applies normally, but if you succeed, and the enemy was using a melee weapon, you take an opportunity attack, dealing half damage (Round down). If you succeeded, and the enemy was using a ranged weapon, you reflect the attack back onto the enemy, dealing half damage (Round down).<br />
<br />
;Niman<br />
You practiced form VI: Niman, a form based on mixing both force abilities, and quick agile attacks. If you used '''Force Push''', '''Force Pull''', or '''Force Repulse''', you can take the attack action directly after as a part of the same action, by expending 1 extra force point.<br />
<br />
;Juyo/Vaapad<br />
You practiced form VII: Juyo/Vaapad, a form based on using your emotions to fuel your attacks, and deal more damage. This form gives you a +2 to all Lightsaber damage.<br />
<br />
==== Ability Score Increase ====<br />
<br />
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can't increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.<br />
<br />
==== Extra Attack ====<br />
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class.<br />
<br />
==== Force Telepathy ====<br />
At 7th level, you can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language. The creature can respond to you. You can communicate to multiple creatures at once by spending force points, you must spend 1 for every additional creature.<br />
<br />
==== Force Persuade ====<br />
At 9th level, whenever you make a Skill Check using {{5a|Cha}}, you can spend FP to give you a bonus to your roll. Every 1 FP you spend, you gain a +1 to your roll, you can use this before or after rolling, but it must be used before you know the outcome, or, if you already know the outcome, it costs 2FP for every +1 bonus.<br />
<br />
==== The Force Is With You ====<br />
At 13th level, when you roll a Saving Throw, you can spend 5 FP to give yourself advantage on the roll. (This ability cannot stack with itself)<br />
<br />
==== Aura of Hope ====<br />
At 14th level, whenever you or a friendly creature within 15 feet of you must make a saving throw, the creature gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to your {{5a|Wis}} modifier (with a minimum bonus of +1). Your allies within this range can also not be Frightened. You must be conscious to grant this bonus.<br />
<br />
==== Improved Unarmoured Defense ====<br />
At 15th level, you have used your connection to the force to gain some precognition, knowing when your enemies will strike, while you are wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + your {{5a|Dex}} modifier + your {{5a|Wis}} modifier + half your proficiency bonus.<br />
<br />
==== Power Mastery ====<br />
At 17th level, you may choose one force power. You can use it without consuming Force Points, as if you had spend the minimum amount of force points on it. This power can be changed when you level up.<br />
<br />
==== One With The Force ====<br />
At 18th level, projectiles (I.E. arrows, bolts, bullets, laser blasts, etc.) have disadvantage on attack rolls against you.<br />
<br />
==== Natural Speed ====<br />
At 20th level, your Speed increases by 10, and you add your {{5a|Wis}} modifier to initiative rolls.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Guardian ===<br />
<br />
Concentrating on martial training and combat,[3] Guardians engaged in combat more than either of the other two classes of Jedi.<br />
<br />
;Improved Critical<br />
Starting at 3rd level, your attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.<br />
<br />
;Jumping Attack<br />
At 6th level, as an action, you can expend 4 FP to jump to an enemy within 15 feet of you and immediately take the attack action as a part of the same action.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Extra Attack<br />
Beginning at 20th level, you can attack four times, instead of three, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Consular ===<br />
<br />
Refraining from drawing their lightsabers except as a measure of last resort, Consulars spent a great deal of time studying the mysteries of the Force.<br />
<br />
;Diplomat<br />
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the {{5s|Persuasion}} and {{5s|Insight}} skills. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.<br />
<br />
;Force Adept<br />
Starting at 6th level, all Force Powers have a -1 Force Point cost.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Power Speed Up<br />
At 20th level, when using a Force Power that's casting time is 1 Action, you can expend extra FP equal to the Force Power's normal FP cost to make the casting time 1 Bonus Action instead.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Sentinel ===<br />
<br />
Sentinels blended both schools of teaching and amplified them with a series of non-Force skills<br />
<br />
;Force Strike<br />
At 3rd level, you can use the force to more accurately aim your attacks. Before you know the outcome of the roll, you can expend 1 FP to add a +1 bonus to the roll. (You can spend more to increase the bonus, it is always a 1:1 ratio.)<br />
<br />
;Evasion<br />
Beginning at 6th level, when you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Reliable Talent<br />
By 20th level, whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Sorcerer ===<br />
<br />
A Sith sorcerer or sorceress was an individual who was proficient in the arts of Sith magic, using spells, talismans, or incantations to focus the power of the dark side. <br />
<br />
;Sith Alchemy<br />
At 3rd level, You gain one Warlock Cantrip, and one Warlock spell (Up to 2nd level), with which you gain one 2nd Level spell slot to cast it with. {{5a|Wis}} is your spellcasting attribute for these spells.<br />
<br />
;Sith Alchemy Improved<br />
At 6th level, you gain another Warlock Cantrip, and another Warlock spell (Up to 3rd level), your 2nd level spell slot is taken away, and replaced by two 3rd level spell slots. <br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Unlimited Power<br />
At 20th level, whenever you attack using a force power (Or your spells), if it hits and deals damage, it also adds your proficiency modifier to the damage.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Marauder ===<br />
<br />
Sith Marauders were fueled by hatred, rage, and cruelty, and used it to defeat their opponents.<br />
<br />
;Savage Attacker<br />
At 3rd level, when you attack an enemy with a weapon (The force power Lightsaber Throw counts), you deal 1d4 extra damage.<br />
<br />
;Survivor<br />
At 6th level, when you take damage, you can decrease the damage taken by 1d12, you can use this once every short or long rest.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Extra Attack<br />
Beginning at 20th level, you can attack four times, instead of three, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Assassin ===<br />
<br />
The Sith assassins were unique because they preferred to ambush their intended prey from the shadows rather than engaging them in open combat.<br />
<br />
;Undetected<br />
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the Sleight of Hand and Stealth skills. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.<br />
<br />
;Stealth Attack<br />
At 6th level, if you have advantage on an attack roll, you may spend 1 FP to increase the damage dealt by 1d4. (You can spend more to increase it further.)<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Blindsense<br />
Starting at 20th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 20 feet of you.<br />
<br />
=== Multiclassing ===<br />
<br />
'''Prerequisites.''' To qualify for multiclassing into the Jedi/Sith class, you must meet these prerequisites: {{5a|Wis}} of 13 or higher.<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{5e Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Jedi/Sith_(5e_Class)&diff=1596856Jedi/Sith (5e Class)2022-04-29T23:54:51Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Copyright Disclaimer|owner=The Walt Disney Company|franchise=Star Wars}}<br />
== Jedi/Sith ==<br />
<br />
There is a mysterious energy deep within the Weave, known as... The Force... Some people... wield this power, such as, the ancient Je'daii, but in more modern times, the Jedi, and the Sith. (Realise that this class will not fit most Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, and you must ask your Dungeon Master before using this class.)<br />
<br />
=== Creating a Jedi/Sith ===<br />
When creating a Jedi/Sith, you must first ask yourself, will you be a Jedi? A Sith? Or a Grey Jedi? Next, why? What happened to your character that causes them to devote themselves to those teachings? When did you discover your force sensitivity?<br />
<br />
;Quick Build<br />
You can make a Jedi/Sith quickly by following these suggestions. First, {{5a|Wis}} should be your highest ability score, followed by {{5a|Dex}}. Second, choose the Outlander background.<br />
<br />
{{5e Class Features<br />
|name=Jedi/Sith<br />
|summary=A powerful warrior, who using a strange mystic energy, known as, The Force.<br />
|hd=10<br />
|spellcasting=<br />
|armor=Shields<br />
|weapons=Simple weapons, martial weapons, lightsabers( favoured weapon )<br />
|tools=None<br />
|saves={{5a|Wis}}, {{5a|Int}}<br />
|skills=Choose 4 from the following. {{5s|Athletics}}, {{5s|Acrobatics}}, {{5s|Animal Handling}}, {{5s|Arcana}}, {{5s|Deception}}, {{5s|History}}, {{5s|Insight}}, {{5s|Investigation}}, {{5s|Medicine}}, {{5s|Perception}}, {{5s|Persuasion}}, {{5s|Religion}}, {{5s|Stealth}}<br />
|item1a=a melee martial weapon<br />
|item1b=a ranged martial weapon<br />
|item1c=a Lightsaber <br />
|item2a=Jedi robes<br />
|item2b=Sith robes<br />
|item2c=<br />
|item3a=Jedi holocron<br />
|item3b=Sith holocron<br />
|item3c=Grey Jedi holocron<br />
|item4a=Explorer's Pack<br />
|item4b=Scholar's Pack<br />
|item4c=Dungeoneer's Pack<br />
|wealth=150 gp<br />
|classfeatures1={{inpage|Unarmoured Defence}}, {{inpage|Force Powers}}, {{inpage|Holocron}}<br />
|classfeatures2={{inpage|Force Jump}} <br />
|classfeatures3={{inpage|Order Path}} <br />
|classfeatures4={{inpage|Lightsaber Form}}<br />
|classfeatures5={{inpage|Extra Attack}} (x1)<br />
|classfeatures6=Order Path Feature<br />
|classfeatures7={{inpage|Force Telepathy}}<br />
|classfeatures8=<br />
|classfeatures9={{inpage|Force Persuade}}<br />
|classfeatures10=Order Path Feature<br />
|classfeatures11={{inpage|Extra Attack}} (x2)<br />
|classfeatures12=<br />
|classfeatures13={{inpage|The Force Is With Me}}<br />
|classfeatures14={{inpage|Aura of Hope}}<br />
|classfeatures15={{inpage|Improved Unarmoured Defence}}<br />
|classfeatures16=<br />
|classfeatures17={{inpage|Power Mastery}}<br />
|classfeatures18={{inpage|One With The Force}}<br />
|classfeatures19=<br />
|classfeatures20=Order Path Feature, {{inpage|Natural Speed}}<br />
<br />
|extrasonleft=2<br />
|extra1_name=Force Points<br />
|extra1_1=5<br />
|extra1_2=5<br />
|extra1_3=10<br />
|extra1_4=10<br />
|extra1_5=15<br />
|extra1_6=15<br />
|extra1_7=20<br />
|extra1_8=20<br />
|extra1_9=25<br />
|extra1_10=25<br />
|extra1_11=30<br />
|extra1_12=30<br />
|extra1_13=35<br />
|extra1_14=35<br />
|extra1_15=40<br />
|extra1_16=40<br />
|extra1_17=45<br />
|extra1_18=45<br />
|extra1_19=50<br />
|extra1_20=50<br />
|extra2_name=Force Powers<br />
|extra2_1=2<br />
|extra2_2=3<br />
|extra2_3=4<br />
|extra2_4=5<br />
|extra2_5=6<br />
|extra2_6=7<br />
|extra2_7=8<br />
|extra2_8=9<br />
|extra2_9=10<br />
|extra2_10=11<br />
|extra2_11=12<br />
|extra2_12=13<br />
|extra2_13=14<br />
|extra2_14=15<br />
|extra2_15=15<br />
|extra2_16=16<br />
|extra2_17=16<br />
|extra2_18=17<br />
|extra2_19=17<br />
|extra2_20=18<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Unarmoured Defence ====<br />
<br />
At 1st level, you have used your connection to the force to gain some precognition, knowing when your enemies will strike, while you are wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + {{5a|Dex}} modifier + your {{5a|Wis}} modifier.<br />
<br />
==== Force Powers ====<br />
At 1st level, you have the ability to use something known as "The Force". You use it mainly through abilities called Force Powers. At 1st level you choose 2 Force Powers, gaining more as you level up, they are detailed [[Force Powers (5e Other)|here]]. Using these Force Powers costs you Force Points (Shortened to FP) (Note, Force Powers that require one Action to activate, count as an Attack Action, meaning, you can take extra attacks after using one, or, you could use one as an extra attack)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Force Save DC''' 8 + {{5a|Wis}} modifier + {{5e|Proficiency Bonus}}<br />
<br />
'''Force Attack Modifier''' {{5a|Wis}} modifier + {{5e|Proficiency Bonus}}<br />
<br />
==== Force Points ====<br />
At 1st level, you have a pool of Force Points (FP), of which you expend to use Force Powers and certain other abilities. You have a certain amount of Force Points shown on the Jedi/Sith Table. You regain your Force Points after a short or long rest.<br />
<br />
==== Holocron ====<br />
At first level, you have a Jedi or Sith's Holocron, you received this, from either luck, or, it was given to you by a Jedi or Sith. This Holocron shows you many things, such as, how to build a Lightsaber, and many of the Force's secrets. There are six kinds of Lightsabers. The cost shows how much gold you must spend in materials to craft the Lightsaber. It takes one hour of total concentration and 5 force point to create your lightsaber.<br />
<br />
{|class="5e" {{#vardefine:odd|0}}<br />
!Weapon ||Damage ||Properties ||Weight ||Cost ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Lightsaber ||1d10 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Versatile (1d12) ||2 lbs. ||150 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Shortsaber ||1d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light ||1.5 lbs. ||100 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Saberstaff ||2d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Two-Handed ||2.5 lbs. ||200 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Saberpike ||1d8 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Versatile (1d10), Reach ||3 lbs. ||175 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|Lightwhip ||1d6 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Reach ||1.5 lb. ||150 ||<br />
|-class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:even}}}}"<br />
|Lightdagger ||1d6 Magical Radiant Damage ||Finesse, Light, Thrown(Range 20/60) ||1 lb. ||100 ||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Force Jump ====<br />
At 2nd level, when you jump/high jump, you can spend a force point to jump twice your normal jump height, if you used this feature, you do not take fall damage from that fall. You can also use this ability while falling to lessen your fall, so you take 0 fall damage.<br />
<br />
==== Order Path ====<br />
At 3rd level, you chose an Order Path. Choose between (If your Holocron is that of a Jedi), Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, and Jedi Sentinel, or (If your Holocron is that of a Sith), Sith Sorcerer, Sith Marauder, and Sith Assassin, all detailed at the end of the class description. Your choice grants you features at 3rd level and again at 6th, 10th, and 20th.<br />
<br />
==== Lightsaber Form ====<br />
At 4th level, you choose one Lightsaber Form to focus on. To gain the benefit of any of these forms, you must be wielding a type of Lightsaber.<br />
<br />
;Shii-Cho<br />
You practiced Form I: Shii-Cho, based on sweeping offensive movements, used to disarm an opponent. When you hit with a weapon attack, you can choose to forgo the damage, and instead disarm your opponent, their weapon falls 5 feet away from them, to their left or right (Your choice)<br />
<br />
;Makashi<br />
You practiced Form II: Makashi, based on dueling, and precise quick attacks. You gain a +1 bonus to all rolls to hit with a Lightsaber, this bonus is added last, if the total is 20 or higher because of this feature, it is treated as a natural 20.<br />
<br />
;Soresu<br />
You practiced form III: Soresu, based on defense, often against projectiles. You gain a +1 bonus to your AC, and if you are attack by a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to roll an acrobatics check against the attacker's attack roll, if you beat it, the attack is reflected away from you.<br />
<br />
;Ataru<br />
You practiced form IV: Ataru, based on fast, acrobatic attacks. Upon taking this form, you gain a +5 bonus to your movement speed. If you move at least 10 <br />
feet on your turn, and then attack an enemy, you have advantage on the attack.<br />
<br />
;Shien/Djem So<br />
You practiced form V: Shien/Djem So, a variant of form III. When being attacked, you can use your reaction to roll an acrobatics check against the attacker's attack roll. If you fail, the attack applies normally, but if you succeed, and the enemy was using a melee weapon, you take an opportunity attack, dealing half damage (Round down). If you succeeded, and the enemy was using a ranged weapon, you reflect the attack back onto the enemy, dealing half damage (Round down).<br />
<br />
;Niman<br />
You practiced form VI: Niman, a form based on mixing both force abilities, and quick agile attacks. If you used '''Force Push''', '''Force Pull''', or '''Force Repulse''', you can take the attack action directly after as a part of the same action, by expending 1 extra force point.<br />
<br />
;Juyo/Vaapad<br />
You practiced form VII: Juyo/Vaapad, a form based on using your emotions to fuel your attacks, and deal more damage. This form gives you a +2 to all Lightsaber damage.<br />
<br />
==== Ability Score Increase ====<br />
<br />
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can't increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.<br />
<br />
==== Extra Attack ====<br />
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class.<br />
<br />
==== Force Telepathy ====<br />
At 7th level, you can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language. The creature can respond to you. You can communicate to multiple creatures at once by spending force points, you must spend 1 for every additional creature.<br />
<br />
==== Force Persuade ====<br />
At 9th level, whenever you make a Skill Check using {{5a|Cha}}, you can spend FP to give you a bonus to your roll. Every 1 FP you spend, you gain a +1 to your roll, you can use this before or after rolling, but it must be used before you know the outcome, or, if you already know the outcome, it costs 2FP for every +1 bonus.<br />
<br />
==== The Force Is With You ====<br />
At 13th level, when you roll a Saving Throw, you can spend 5 FP to give yourself advantage on the roll. (This ability cannot stack with itself)<br />
<br />
==== Aura of Hope ====<br />
At 14th level, whenever you or a friendly creature within 15 feet of you must make a saving throw, the creature gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to your {{5a|Wis}} modifier (with a minimum bonus of +1). Your allies within this range can also not be Frightened. You must be conscious to grant this bonus.<br />
<br />
==== Improved Unarmoured Defense ====<br />
At 15th level, you have used your connection to the force to gain some precognition, knowing when your enemies will strike, while you are wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + your {{5a|Dex}} modifier + your {{5a|Wis}} modifier + half your proficiency bonus.<br />
<br />
==== Power Mastery ====<br />
At 17th level, you may choose one force power. You can use it without consuming Force Points, as if you had spend the minimum amount of force points on it. This power can be changed when you level up.<br />
<br />
==== One With The Force ====<br />
At 18th level, projectiles (I.E. arrows, bolts, bullets, laser blasts, etc.) have disadvantage on attack rolls against you.<br />
<br />
==== Natural Speed ====<br />
At 20th level, your Speed increases by 10, and you add your {{5a|Wis}} modifier to initiative rolls.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Guardian ===<br />
<br />
Concentrating on martial training and combat,[3] Guardians engaged in combat more than either of the other two classes of Jedi.<br />
<br />
;Improved Critical<br />
Starting at 3rd level, your attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.<br />
<br />
;Jumping Attack<br />
At 6th level, as an action, you can expend 4 FP to jump to an enemy within 15 feet of you and immediately take the attack action as a part of the same action.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Extra Attack<br />
Beginning at 20th level, you can attack four times, instead of three, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Consular ===<br />
<br />
Refraining from drawing their lightsabers except as a measure of last resort, Consulars spent a great deal of time studying the mysteries of the Force.<br />
<br />
;Diplomat<br />
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the {{5s|Persuasion}} and {{5s|Insight}} skills. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.<br />
<br />
;Force Adept<br />
Starting at 6th level, all Force Powers have a -1 Force Point cost.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Power Speed Up<br />
At 20th level, when using a Force Power that's casting time is 1 Action, you can expend extra FP equal to the Force Power's normal FP cost to make the casting time 1 Bonus Action instead.<br />
<br />
=== Jedi Sentinel ===<br />
<br />
Sentinels blended both schools of teaching and amplified them with a series of non-Force skills<br />
<br />
;Force Strike<br />
At 3rd level, you can use the force to more accurately aim your attacks. Before you know the outcome of the roll, you can expend 1 FP to add a +1 bonus to the roll. (You can spend more to increase the bonus, it is always a 1:1 ratio.)<br />
<br />
;Evasion<br />
Beginning at 6th level, when you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Reliable Talent<br />
By 20th level, whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Sorcerer ===<br />
<br />
A Sith sorcerer or sorceress was an individual who was proficient in the arts of Sith magic, using spells, talismans, or incantations to focus the power of the dark side. <br />
<br />
;Sith Alchemy<br />
At 3rd level, You gain one Warlock Cantrip, and one Warlock spell (Up to 2nd level), with which you gain one 2nd Level spell slot to cast it with. {{5a|Wis}} is your spellcasting attribute for these spells.<br />
<br />
;Sith Alchemy Improved<br />
At 6th level, you gain another Warlock Cantrip, and another Warlock spell (Up to 3rd level), your 2nd level spell slot is taken away, and replaced by two 3rd level spell slots. <br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Unlimited Power<br />
At 20th level, whenever you attack using a force power (Or your spells), if it hits and deals damage, it also adds your proficiency modifier to the damage.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Marauder ===<br />
<br />
Sith Marauders were fueled by hatred, rage, and cruelty, and used it to defeat their opponents.<br />
<br />
;Savage Attacker<br />
At 3rd level, when you attack an enemy with a weapon (The force power Lightsaber Throw counts), you deal 1d4 extra damage.<br />
<br />
;Survivor<br />
At 6th level, when you take damage, you can decrease the damage taken by 1d12, you can use this once every short or long rest.<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Extra Attack<br />
Beginning at 20th level, you can attack four times, instead of three, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.<br />
<br />
=== Sith Assassin ===<br />
<br />
The Sith assassins were unique because they preferred to ambush their intended prey from the shadows rather than engaging them in open combat.<br />
<br />
;Undetected<br />
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the Sleight of Hand and Stealth skills. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.<br />
<br />
;Stealth Attack<br />
At 6th level, if you have advantage on an attack roll, you may spend 1 FP to increase the damage dealt by 1d4. (You can spend more to increase it further.)<br />
<br />
;Additional Lightsaber Form<br />
At 10th level, you can choose a second option from the Lightsaber Form class feature.<br />
<br />
;Blindsense<br />
Starting at 20th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 20 feet of you.<br />
<br />
=== Multiclassing ===<br />
<br />
'''Prerequisites.''' To qualify for multiclassing into the Jedi/Sith class, you must meet these prerequisites: {{5a|Wis}} of 13 or higher.<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{5e Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Snake-Blooded_(3.5e_Feat)&diff=1580491Snake-Blooded (3.5e Feat)2022-03-10T11:02:07Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="supplement"><br />
<br />
{{3.5e Feat<br />
|name= Snake-blooded<br />
|types=Archetype<br />
|summary= Snake-blooded folk are created when spellcasters combine the power of the statue in the Snake god, Kulruid’s temple with their own magic arts, they gain additional unique powers and spells, such spellcasters gain snake-ish abilities that are considered natural abilities.<br />
|prereqs= Any non-good, charisma must be at least 16<br />
|benefit= See below<br />
|special= If you ever stop qualifying for this feat, you can trade it for another archetype feat you meet the prerequisites. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Archetype Feat Bonus are based on HD.'''<br />
<br />
* '''1 HD''': +4 bonus on Bluff checks(the bluff bonuses only works with the forked tongue) snake-blooded folk gain the following spell-like-abilities: <br />
'''Tongues''': This ability is constant, it allows snake-blooded folk to communicate with reptiles and any creature that has a language.<br />
'''Create poison''' A snake-blooded creature can create poison once every hour, damage 1d6 cha and int, subject dies after a week, the last hour that the subject <br />
dies, it will puff up a cloud of poison, anybody that<br />
* '''3 HD''': <!--Benefit granted by this feat at 3 HD--><br />
* '''8 HD''': <!--Benefit granted by this feat at 8 HD--><br />
* '''15 HD''': <!--Benefit granted by this feat at 15 HD--><br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Feats Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[3.5e Archetype Feats|Archetype Feats]]<br />
<!-- DELETE THIS LINE BEFORE YOU SAVE<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Feat]]<br />
[[Category:Archetype Feat]]<br />
DELETE THIS LINE BEFORE YOU SAVE --><br />
</div></div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1578441Talk:Main Page2022-03-05T23:17:35Z<p>Michaellai: /* 자야사랑 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
::Subschool of Transmutation would make sense, but that wasn't an official subschool it seems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
:Oh, I just help with art on the wiki as an [[Help:Help Page|artist helper]]. Are you looking for art for a page or art advice (that might be a bit more off-topic maybe so it'll be to the talk page then :l)--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
I don’t know how to thx u<br />
::There you go--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Bad Rules in the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
So everybody was mad about the deleting, editing, copying, and a lotta things bout LA, things about a Race was not balanced, but actually they just wanted ideas, just wanna add something to make it better, but everyone’s taste of something is different, so how ‘bout establish some rules here:<br />
1. No copying, editing or deleting without creator’s permission<br />
2. Put name after your create a race, class and anything else<br />
3. No complains<br />
<br />
Just type “vote” below if u agree {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
<br />
:The wiki already has rules that govern this sort of situation. You can find them in the [[Help]] section. I recommend that you read through the majority of the wiki's rules before proposing new ones. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 03:46, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
::That's also not exactly how a wiki works. The creator doesn't have sole permissions to pages they are the OP of, and we don't put a creator tag on anything. Building good homebrew also requires complaints, critiques, and addressing those problems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:14, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Also, a discussion like this would ideally take place on the appropriate policy page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:02, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Okay<br />
<br />
== 자야사랑 ==<br />
<br />
This Korean here, I wanna warn you, you are ruining stuff everywhere( including my classes☹️)<br />
Just I don’t want to type that name again I ain’t Korean. I am from HONG Kong 🇭🇰 .<br />
<br />
Also I forgot how to sign my posts [[User:Michaellai|Michaellai]] ([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]]) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hi, if someone makes an edit you disagree with, you can ask them about it on their user talk page. Also, you can sign your posts by adding four tilde symbols to the end, like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. The site recognizes this as your signature, and will automagically replace it with your username and a link to your talk page when you save your message. Don't be afraid to reach out if you have any more questions! ^_^ {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:02, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thank you [[User:Michaellai|Michaellai]] ([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]]) 16:12, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
But I can’t find it’s talk page because that guy is Korean and I don’t think that guy knows English either.[[User:Michaellai|Michaellai]] ([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]]) 16:17, 5 March 2022 (MST)</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1578439Talk:Main Page2022-03-05T23:12:43Z<p>Michaellai: /* 자야사랑 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
::Subschool of Transmutation would make sense, but that wasn't an official subschool it seems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
:Oh, I just help with art on the wiki as an [[Help:Help Page|artist helper]]. Are you looking for art for a page or art advice (that might be a bit more off-topic maybe so it'll be to the talk page then :l)--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
I don’t know how to thx u<br />
::There you go--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Bad Rules in the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
So everybody was mad about the deleting, editing, copying, and a lotta things bout LA, things about a Race was not balanced, but actually they just wanted ideas, just wanna add something to make it better, but everyone’s taste of something is different, so how ‘bout establish some rules here:<br />
1. No copying, editing or deleting without creator’s permission<br />
2. Put name after your create a race, class and anything else<br />
3. No complains<br />
<br />
Just type “vote” below if u agree {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
<br />
:The wiki already has rules that govern this sort of situation. You can find them in the [[Help]] section. I recommend that you read through the majority of the wiki's rules before proposing new ones. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 03:46, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
::That's also not exactly how a wiki works. The creator doesn't have sole permissions to pages they are the OP of, and we don't put a creator tag on anything. Building good homebrew also requires complaints, critiques, and addressing those problems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:14, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Also, a discussion like this would ideally take place on the appropriate policy page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:02, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Okay<br />
<br />
== 자야사랑 ==<br />
<br />
This Korean here, I wanna warn you, you are ruining stuff everywhere( including my classes☹️)<br />
Just I don’t want to type that name again I ain’t Korean. I am from HONG Kong 🇭🇰 .<br />
<br />
Also I forgot how to sign my posts [[User:Michaellai|Michaellai]] ([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]]) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hi, if someone makes an edit you disagree with, you can ask them about it on their user talk page. Also, you can sign your posts by adding four tilde symbols to the end, like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. The site recognizes this as your signature, and will automagically replace it with your username and a link to your talk page when you save your message. Don't be afraid to reach out if you have any more questions! ^_^ {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:02, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thank you [[User:Michaellai|Michaellai]] ([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]]) 16:12, 5 March 2022 (MST)</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1578437Talk:Main Page2022-03-05T23:11:04Z<p>Michaellai: /* 자야사랑 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
::Subschool of Transmutation would make sense, but that wasn't an official subschool it seems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
:Oh, I just help with art on the wiki as an [[Help:Help Page|artist helper]]. Are you looking for art for a page or art advice (that might be a bit more off-topic maybe so it'll be to the talk page then :l)--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
I don’t know how to thx u<br />
::There you go--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Bad Rules in the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
So everybody was mad about the deleting, editing, copying, and a lotta things bout LA, things about a Race was not balanced, but actually they just wanted ideas, just wanna add something to make it better, but everyone’s taste of something is different, so how ‘bout establish some rules here:<br />
1. No copying, editing or deleting without creator’s permission<br />
2. Put name after your create a race, class and anything else<br />
3. No complains<br />
<br />
Just type “vote” below if u agree {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
<br />
:The wiki already has rules that govern this sort of situation. You can find them in the [[Help]] section. I recommend that you read through the majority of the wiki's rules before proposing new ones. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 03:46, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
::That's also not exactly how a wiki works. The creator doesn't have sole permissions to pages they are the OP of, and we don't put a creator tag on anything. Building good homebrew also requires complaints, critiques, and addressing those problems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:14, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Also, a discussion like this would ideally take place on the appropriate policy page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:02, 3 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Okay<br />
<br />
== 자야사랑 ==<br />
<br />
This Korean here, I wanna warn you, you are ruining stuff everywhere( including my classes☹️)<br />
Just I don’t want to type that name again I ain’t Korean. I am from HONG Kong 🇭🇰 .<br />
<br />
Also I forgot how to sign my posts [[User:Michaellai|Michaellai]] ([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]]) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hi, if someone makes an edit you disagree with, you can ask them about it on their user talk page. Also, you can sign your posts by adding four tilde symbols to the end, like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. The site recognizes this as your signature, and will automagically replace it with your username and a link to your talk page when you save your message. Don't be afraid to reach out if you have any more questions! ^_^ {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:02, 5 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thank you</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Pretty_Boy/Girl_(3.5e_Feat)&diff=1578435Pretty Boy/Girl (3.5e Feat)2022-03-05T23:03:25Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="supplement"><br />
<br />
{{3.5e Feat<br />
|name=Pretty Boy/Girl<br />
|types=Archetype<br />
|summary= You are pretty, very pretty. Somehow it makes your life easier.<br />
|prereqs= Humanoid Type.<br />
|benefit= See below<br />
|special= If you ever stop qualifying for this feat, you can trade it for another archetype feat you meet the prerequisites. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Archetype Feat Bonus are based on HD.'''<br />
<br />
* '''1 HD''': Convincing other creatures is easier when you are pretty! You gain +5 bonus on all [[SRD:Charisma|charisma]]-based checks against all creatures.<br />
* '''4 HD''': Your prettiness tends to distract people, any foe within a 30 ft. radius of you takes a -5 penalty to [[SRD:Concentration|concentration]] checks.<br />
* '''7 HD''': You are so pretty you can make anyone your friend. As a standard action you can cast [[SRD:Charm Person|''charm person'']] as a spell-like ability. You can only have a number of charmed friends equal to twice your HD.<br />
* '''10 HD''': You're so beautiful you can magically compel others to do your bidding. You can slip in a [[SRD:Suggestion|''suggestion'']] whenever you talk. You can use this ability in combat.<br />
* '''13 HD''': You’re so pretty that even monsters have a friendly attitude towards you, you can use [[SRD:Charm Monster|''charm monster'']] or [[SRD:Mass Charm Monster|''mass charm monster'']]<br />
*The save dc vs your spell-like abilities is 19 + charisma mod,this will never change.<br />
*Your spell-like abilities affect those even immune to enchantment and compulsion abilities.<br />
'''Example''': Clara is a 10 HD pretty girl. One day she sit in a tavern with her fellows and she approach the barkeeper and say "''I really want a drink honey, a free drink.''" The barkeeper is allowed a Will save to resist offering her a free drink. However, no adjacent creatures are affected by her suggestion. If the barman was, for example, an [[SRD:Ogre|ogre]], he would be affected by the suggestion.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Feats Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[DnD Archetype Feats|Archetype Feats]]<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Feat]]<br />
[[Category:Archetype Feat]]<br />
<br />
</div></div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Pretty_Boy/Girl_(3.5e_Feat)&diff=1578078Pretty Boy/Girl (3.5e Feat)2022-03-04T23:31:02Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="supplement"><br />
<br />
{{3.5e Feat<br />
|name=Pretty Boy/Girl<br />
|types=Archetype<br />
|summary= You are pretty, very pretty. Somehow it makes your life easier.<br />
|prereqs= Humanoid Type.<br />
|benefit= See below<br />
|special= If you ever stop qualifying for this feat, you can trade it for another archetype feat you meet the prerequisites. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Archetype Feat Bonus are based on HD.'''<br />
<br />
* '''1 HD''': Convincing other creatures is easier when you are pretty! You gain +5 bonus on all [[SRD:Charisma|charisma]]-based checks against all creatures.<br />
* '''4 HD''': Your prettiness tends to distract people, any foe within a 30 ft. radius of you takes a -5 penalty to [[SRD:Concentration|concentration]] checks.<br />
* '''7 HD''': You are so pretty you can make anyone your friend. As a standard action you can cast [[SRD:Charm Person|''charm person'']] as a spell-like ability. You can only have a number of charmed friends equal to twice your HD.<br />
* '''10 HD''': You're so beautiful you can magically compel others to do your bidding. You can slip in a [[SRD:Suggestion|''suggestion'']] whenever you talk. You can use this ability in combat.<br />
* '''13 HD''': You’re so pretty that even monsters have a friendly attitude towards you, you can use [[SRD:Charm Monster|''charm monster'']] or [[SRD:Mass Charm Monster|''mass charm monster'']]<br />
*The save dc vs your spell-like abilities is 19 + charisma mod,this will never change.<br />
*Your spell-like abilities affect those even immune to enchantment abilities.<br />
'''Example''': Clara is a 10 HD pretty girl. One day she sit in a tavern with her fellows and she approach the barkeeper and say "''I really want a drink honey, a free drink.''" The barkeeper is allowed a Will save to resist offering her a free drink. However, no adjacent creatures are affected by her suggestion. If the barman was, for example, an [[SRD:Ogre|ogre]], he would be affected by the suggestion.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Feats Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[DnD Archetype Feats|Archetype Feats]]<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Feat]]<br />
[[Category:Archetype Feat]]<br />
<br />
</div></div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Pretty_Boy/Girl_(3.5e_Feat)&diff=1578074Pretty Boy/Girl (3.5e Feat)2022-03-04T23:23:04Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="supplement"><br />
<br />
{{3.5e Feat<br />
|name=Pretty Boy/Girl<br />
|types=Archetype<br />
|summary= You are pretty, very pretty. Somehow it makes your life easier.<br />
|prereqs= Humanoid Type.<br />
|benefit= See below<br />
|special= If you ever stop qualifying for this feat, you can trade it for another archetype feat you meet the prerequisites. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Archetype Feat Bonus are based on HD.'''<br />
<br />
* '''1 HD''': Convincing other creatures is easier when you are pretty! You gain +5 bonus on all [[SRD:Charisma|charisma]]-based checks against all creatures.<br />
* '''4 HD''': Your prettiness tends to distract people, any foe within a 30 ft. radius of you takes a -5 penalty to [[SRD:Concentration|concentration]] checks.<br />
* '''7 HD''': You are so pretty you can make anyone your friend. As a standard action you can cast [[SRD:Charm Person|''charm person'']] as a spell-like ability. You can only have a number of charmed friends equal to twice your HD.<br />
* '''10 HD''': You're so beautiful you can magically compel others to do your bidding. You can slip in a [[SRD:Suggestion|''suggestion'']] whenever you talk. You can use this ability in combat.<br />
* ‘’’13 HD’’’: You’re so pretty that even monsters have a friendly attitude towards you, you can use [[SRD:Charm Monster|charm monster]] or [[SRD:Mass Charm Monster|mass charm monster]]<br />
*The save dc vs your spell-like abilities is 19 + charisma mod,this will never change.<br />
*Your spell-like abilities affect those even immune to enchantment abilities.<br />
'''Example''': Clara is a 10 HD pretty girl. One day she sit in a tavern with her fellows and she approach the barkeeper and say "''I really want a drink honey, a free drink.''" The barkeeper is allowed a Will save to resist offering her a free drink. However, no adjacent creatures are affected by her suggestion. If the barman was, for example, an [[SRD:Ogre|ogre]], he would be affected by the suggestion.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Feats Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[DnD Archetype Feats|Archetype Feats]]<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Feat]]<br />
[[Category:Archetype Feat]]<br />
<br />
</div></div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Pretty_Boy/Girl_(3.5e_Feat)&diff=1578072Pretty Boy/Girl (3.5e Feat)2022-03-04T23:17:36Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="supplement"><br />
<br />
{{3.5e Feat<br />
|name=Pretty Boy/Girl<br />
|types=Archetype<br />
|summary= You are pretty, very pretty. Somehow it makes your life easier.<br />
|prereqs= Humanoid Type.<br />
|benefit= See below<br />
|special= If you ever stop qualifying for this feat, you can trade it for another archetype feat you meet the prerequisites. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Archetype Feat Bonus are based on HD.'''<br />
<br />
* '''1 HD''': Convincing other creatures is easier when you are pretty! You gain +5 bonus on all [[SRD:Charisma|charisma]]-based checks against all creatures.<br />
* '''4 HD''': Your prettiness tends to distract people, any foe within a 30 ft. radius of you takes a -5 penalty to [[SRD:Concentration|concentration]] checks.<br />
* '''7 HD''': You are so pretty you can make anyone your friend. As a standard action you can cast [[SRD:Charm Person|''charm person'']] as a spell-like ability. You can only have a number of charmed friends equal to twice your HD.<br />
* '''10 HD''': You're so beautiful you can magically compel others to do your bidding. You can slip in a [[SRD:Suggestion|''suggestion'']] whenever you talk. You can use this ability in combat.<br />
* ‘’’13 HD’’’: You’re so pretty that even monsters have a friendly attitude towards you, you can use [[SRD:Charm Monster|’’charm monster’’]] or [[SRD:Charm Monster|’’charm monster’’]]<br />
*The save dc vs your spell-like abilities is 19,this will never change.<br />
*Your spell-like abilities affect those even immune to enchantment abilities.<br />
'''Example''': Clara is a 10 HD pretty girl. One day she sit in a tavern with her fellows and she approach the barkeeper and say "''I really want a drink honey, a free drink.''" The barkeeper is allowed a Will save to resist offering her a free drink. However, no adjacent creatures are affected by her suggestion. If the barman was, for example, an [[SRD:Ogre|ogre]], he would be affected by the suggestion.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Feats Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[DnD Archetype Feats|Archetype Feats]]<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Feat]]<br />
[[Category:Archetype Feat]]<br />
<br />
</div></div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Warrior_of_the_Wilderness_(3.5e_Class)&diff=1577589Warrior of the Wilderness (3.5e Class)2022-03-04T00:56:56Z<p>Michaellai: Created page with "{{stub|Newly created&ndash; other Improving, reviewing, or removing templates may be required.}} {{DnD Base..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub|Newly created&ndash; other [[D&D Wiki:Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|Improving, reviewing, or removing]] templates may be required.}}<br />
{{DnD Base Class Infobox<br />
|img=<!--name of image file--><br />
|imgsize=<!--width in pixels--><br />
|imgcaption=<!--Image caption--><br />
|type=<!--What additional roles this class fits (see bottom; e.g. "Good Guy, Combat-Focused")--><br />
|desc=<!--Paragraph description of the class: appears in the index--><br />
}}<br />
<br />
== <-class name-> ==<br />
<div class="externalimage-holder" style="width:30%;float:right;"><br />
{| class="3.5e" style="float:right"<br />
!<img link><br />
|-<br />
|By [img src link]<br />
|}</div><br />
<-general description->.<br />
<br />
=== Making a <-class name-> ===<br />
<br />
<-Strong points and weak points, and effectiveness with party members.->.<br />
<br />
'''Abilities:''' <-description of most important attributes for this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Races:''' <-description of relative likelihood of various races to join this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Alignment:''' <-alignments allowed for this class, or write "Any"->.<br />
<br />
'''Starting Gold:''' <-starting gold; YdZ->&times;10 gp (<-average starting gold. This calculated by multiplying the number of die rolls by the die size plus one and multiplying the result by 5 [Y × (Z + 1) × 5].-> gp).<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Race Descriptions#Starting Age|Starting Age]]:''' <-Select "Simple" or "As [[rogue]]", "Moderate" or "As [[fighter]]", or "Complex" or "As [[wizard]]", to let players know which starting age category to use for 1st-level characters->.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The <-class name->}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d<-Die size for Hit Die-><br />
|-<br />
! rowspan="2" | Level<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[BAB|Base<br/>Attack Bonus]]<br />
! colspan="3" | [[SRD:Saving Throw|Saving Throw]]s<br />
! rowspan="2" | Special<br />
! colspan="10" | [[#Spells|Spells per Day]]<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[#Power Points/Day|Power<br/>Points/Day]]<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[#Powers Known|Powers<br/>Known]]<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[#Maximum Power Level Known|Maximum Power<br/>Level Known]]<br />
|-<br />
! [[SRD:Saving Throw#Fortitude|Fort]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Reflex|Ref]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Will|Will]]<br />
! 0 || 1<sup>st</sup> || 2<sup>nd</sup> || 3<sup>rd</sup> || 4<sup>th</sup> || 5<sup>th</sup> || 6<sup>th</sup> || 7<sup>th</sup> || 8<sup>th</sup> || 9<sup>th</sup><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|1st|| class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|2nd|| class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|3rd|| class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|4th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|5th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|6th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|7th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|8th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|9th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|10th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|11th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|12th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|13th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|14th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|15th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|16th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|17th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|18th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|19th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|20th||class="left" | + || + || + || +<br />
| class="left" | <-any class features gained at this level-><br />
|—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—<br />
|—||—||—<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="42" class="skill" |<br />
'''Class Skills (<-number of skill points-> + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier per level, &times;4 at 1st level)'''<br/><br />
<-class skills (and key abilities)->.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== Class Features ====<br />
<br />
<-fluff about class features->. All of the following are class features of the <-class name->.<br />
<br />
'''Weapon and Armor Proficiency:''' <-description of class weapon & armor proficiencies->.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Spells}}:''' <-Delete this section if this class does not cast spells. description of spellcasting abilities: on what stat save DCs are based, on what stat bonus spells are based, and what stat determines the highest level spell that can be cast.->. <-pluralized class name-> choose their spells from the following list:<br />
<br />
0&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
1st&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
2nd&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
3rd&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
4th&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
5th&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
6th&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
7th&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
8th&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
9th&mdash;<-spells, spells, spells-><br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ {{#anc:Table: <-class name-> Spells Known}}<br />
|-<br />
! rowspan="2" | Level || colspan="10" | Spells Known<br />
|-<br />
! 0 || 1<sup>st</sup> || 2<sup>nd</sup> || 3<sup>rd</sup> || 4<sup>th</sup> || 5<sup>th</sup> || 6<sup>th</sup> || 7<sup>th</sup> || 8<sup>th</sup> || 9<sup>th</sup><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 1st || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 2nd || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 3rd || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 4th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 5th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 6th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 7th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 8th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 9th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 10th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 11th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 12th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 13th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 14th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 15th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 16th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 17th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 18th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 19th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 20th || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || —<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Power Points/Day}}:''' A <-class name->’s ability to manifest [[SRD:Powers|powers]] is limited by the [[SRD:Power Points|power points]] he has available. His base daily allotment of [[SRD:Power Points|power points]] is given on [[#Table: <-class name->|Table: <-class name->]]. In addition, he receives bonus [[SRD:Power Points|power points]] per day if he has a high <-relevant ability-> score (see [[SRD:Ability Scores#Ability Modifiers and Bonus Power Points|Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Power Points]]). His race may also provide bonus [[SRD:Power Points|power points]] per day, as may certain feats and items.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Powers Known}}:''' <-Delete this section if this class does not manifest powers. description of manifesting abilities: on what stat save DCs are based, on what stat bonus powers points are based, and what stat determines the highest level power that can be manifested.->. <-pluralized class name-> choose their powers from the following list:<br />
<br />
0&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
1st&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
2nd&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
3rd&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
4th&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
5th&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
6th&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
7th&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
8th&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
9th&mdash;<-powers, powers, powers-><br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Maximum Power Level Known}}:''' This column determines the highest level power he can learn at this level.<br />
<br />
To learn or manifest a power, a <-class name-> must have an <-relevant ability-> score of at least 10 + the power’s level.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:<-extraordinary class feature->}} ([[Ex]]):''' <-class feature game rule information-><br />
<br />
'''''{{#anc:<-psi-like class feature->}}'' ([[Ps]]):''' <-class feature game rule information-><br />
<br />
'''''{{#anc:<-spell-like class feature->}}'' ([[Sp]]):''' <-class feature game rule information-><br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:<-supernatural class feature->}} ([[Su]]):''' <-class feature game rule information-><br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:<-class feature->}}:''' <-class feature game rule information-><br />
<br />
''{{#anc:<-subclass feature <!-- See the rogue's "Special Ability" for an example: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Rogue#Special_Abilities -->->}} <-"(Ex)", "(Su)", "(Sp)", or "(Ps)" if applicable.->:'' <-subclass feature game rule information-><br />
<br />
<-Lather, rinse...-><br />
<br />
<-... repeat as necessary.-><br />
<br />
==== Ex-<-pluralized class name-> ====<br />
<br />
<-Describe what happens when a character violates the alignment restrictions of any other class restrictions. If there are no behavior or alignment restrictions delete this section->.<br />
<br />
==== Epic <-class name-> ====<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ class="epic" |<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The Epic <-class name->}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d<-Die size for Hit Die-><br />
|-<br />
! Level !! Special<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 21st || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 22nd || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 23rd || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 24th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 25th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 26th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 27th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 28th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 29th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 30th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="42" class="skill" |<br />
<-number of skill points-> + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier skill points per level.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''<-existing class feature->:''' <-how this class feature increases or accumulates at epic levels-><br />
<br />
'''<-another existing class feature->:''' <-how this class feature increases or accumulates at epic levels-><br />
<br />
<-Lather, rinse...-><br />
<br />
<-... repeat.-><br />
<br />
'''{{#anc: Bonus Feats }}:''' The epic <-class name-> gains a bonus feat (selected from the list of epic <-class name-> bonus feats) every <-number of feats per level-> levels after 20th.<br />
<br />
''Epic <-class name-> Bonus Feat List:'' <-list of bonus epic feats->.<br />
<br />
==== <-Sample race of your choice-> <-class name-> Starting Package ====<br />
<br />
'''Weapons:''' <-Weapon selection for starting at 1st level with this class.->.<br />
<br />
'''Skill Selection:''' Pick a number of skills equal to 4 + [[Int]] modifier.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|-<br />
! class="left" | Skill || Ranks || Ability || Armor<br/>Check<br/>Penalty<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | <-Skill name-> || <-4 for class skills and 2 for cross-class skills-> || <-Abbreviated key ability-> || <-armor check penalty based on starting armor. If inapplicable put "&mdash;"-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | <-Skill name-> || <-4 for class skills and 2 for cross-class skills-> || <-Abbreviated key ability-> || <-armor check penalty based on starting armor. If inapplicable put "&mdash;"-><br />
<-copy and paste the rows as necessary.-><br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''Feat:''' <-1st-level feat selection->.<br />
<br />
'''Bonus Feats:''' <-1st-level feat bonus feats due to class or sample race. remove this section if this sample doesn't get any bonus feats at 1st level. ->.<br />
<br />
'''Gear:''' <-Starting armor and other equipment outside of weapons.->.<br />
<br />
'''Gold:''' <-Starting gold using this package.->.<br />
<br />
=== Campaign Information ===<br />
<br />
==== Playing a <-class name-> ====<br />
<br />
'''Religion:''' <-description of how this class typically (but no exclusively) approaches religion including likely portfolios it would worship->.<br />
<br />
'''Other Classes:''' <-How this class typically interacts with other classes and how characters of this class interact with characters of other classes->.<br />
<br />
'''Combat:''' <-Typical role in combat->.<br />
<br />
'''Advancement:''' <-Typical advancement options for characters with this class. Include desirable multiclass options->.<br />
<br />
==== <-pluralized class name-> in the World ====<br />
<br />
{{quote|<-Some quote from a character of this class->|orig=<-NPC name->, <-race-> <-class->}}<br />
<br />
<-Where characters of this class fit in a d20 world.-><br />
<br />
'''Daily Life:''' <-day in the life of a character of this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Notables:''' <-notable NPCs of this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Organizations:''' <-info on what, where, when, and how characters of this class congregate and assemble->.<br />
<br />
'''NPC Reactions:''' <-How NPCs react to PCs of this class->.<br />
<br />
==== <-class name-> Lore ====<br />
<br />
Characters with ranks in <-the appropriate skills-> can research <-pluralized class name-> to learn more about them. When a character makes a skill check, read or paraphrase the following, including information from lower DCs.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ <-the appropriate skills-><br />
! DC || class="left" | Result<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 5 || class="left" | <-common knowledge->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 10 || class="left" | <-not so common knowledge->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 15 || class="left" | <-rare information->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 20 || class="left" | <-very rare information->.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==== <-pluralized class name-> in the Game ====<br />
<br />
<-How characters of this class fit in the game (PC and NPC) and what roles they play.-><br />
<br />
'''Adaptation:''' <-Possible variant conceptions of this class.->.<br />
<br />
'''Sample Encounter:''' <-DM placement for NPCs of this class.->.<br />
<br />
''EL <!-- EL Number -->:'' <-Encounter scenario and character info on sample NPC including stat block. The CR of the NPC is typically the same as the EL for the encounter.->.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING BELOW THIS--><br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Base Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]<br />
[[Category:Base Class]]<br />
<!-- additional categories. Possible categories include: REMOVE THIS ENTIRE LINE<br />
[[Category:Good Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Bad Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Combat-Focused]]<br />
[[Category:Skilled]]<br />
[[Category:Moderate Spellcasting]]<br />
[[Category:Strong Spellcasting]]<br />
[[Category:Arcane Spellcasting]]<br />
[[Category:Divine Spellcasting]]<br />
[[Category:Prepared Spellcasting]]<br />
[[Category:Spontaneous Spellcasting]]<br />
--></div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1577031Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T09:18:19Z<p>Michaellai: /* Rules in the Wiki */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
::Subschool of Transmutation would make sense, but that wasn't an official subschool it seems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
:Oh, I just help with art on the wiki as an [[Help:Help Page|artist helper]]. Are you looking for art for a page or art advice (that might be a bit more off-topic maybe so it'll be to the talk page then :l)--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
I don’t know how to thx u<br />
::There you go--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Rules in the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
So everybody was mad about the deleting, editing, copying, and a lotta things bout LA, things about a Race was not balanced, but actually they just wanted ideas, just wanna add something to make it better, but everyone’s taste of something is different, so how ‘bout establish some rules here:<br />
1. No copying, editing or deleting without creator’s permission<br />
2. Put name after your create a race, class and anything else<br />
3. No complains<br />
<br />
Just type “vote” below if u agree</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1577030Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T09:16:49Z<p>Michaellai: /* Rules in the Wiki */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
::Subschool of Transmutation would make sense, but that wasn't an official subschool it seems.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
:Oh, I just help with art on the wiki as an [[Help:Help Page|artist helper]]. Are you looking for art for a page or art advice (that might be a bit more off-topic maybe so it'll be to the talk page then :l)--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
I don’t know how to thx u<br />
::There you go--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Rules in the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
So everybody was mad about the deleting, editing, copying, and a lotta things bout LA, things about a Race was not balanced, but actually they just wanted ideas, just wanna add something to make it better, but everyone’s taste of something is different, so how ‘bout establish some rules here:<br />
1. No copying, editing or deleting without creator’s permission<br />
2. Put name after your create a race, class and anything else<br />
3. No complains</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanied&diff=1576930User talk:Yanied2022-03-03T07:28:32Z<p>Michaellai: /* Hey are u a Nerd or Geek, I’m A nerd */</p>
<hr />
<div><s>''Wie gehts?''</s> Ahem, I mean, what's up? Thanks for dropping by.<br />
__TOC__<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 40)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Difficulty with the subclass I created with a player ==<br />
I'm struggling to keep a subclass I created a little over a year ago (Oath of rot) true to what it was, after me and the player I made it with went back for a rules question we found the class was completely changed and while some of the flavor writing was good, we had to revert it back to the original as it had nearly none of the original aspects left I did however keep the changes in a separate page called the oath of the decaying and referenced such in the talk page, I've come back this morning to find the changes to the page back to how they were before I reverted them with a protection on the page saying we should use the talk page to sort this out, but I already have used the talk page. i have a session coming up today and would hopefully like the page unprotected so I can revert the changes back to what they should be. --[[User:Varuun|Varuun]] 12 September 2021<br />
:It seems to have been resolved and the page is unlocked so cheers.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 13:39, 12 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Question on how to proceed ==<br />
I noticed that you left comments about the state of [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ozvaldo_von_Hrafnavines_(5e_Creature) Oz] and while the wording of the features can easily be fixed I was wondering if it would be best to explain how the companion works and have the various features stay within the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Electro_Vision_User_(5e_Class)#The_Outworld_Traveler class]. If it's fine to have a separate creature page in this mannor, then aside from wording, how would I fix some of the link formating and properly explaining of how it would work in terms of 5e mechanics? -- [[User:ThighRash|ThighRash]] ([[User talk:ThighRash|talk]])<br />
:If you want, I can have the stuff moved over to the proper class page. It might be more appropriate to call it the raven familiar there.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:23, 3 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Shinigami, Variant ==<br />
We,my friends and I, have finished the Shinigami, Variant(5e class). We would love if it could be moved up to the finished classes based on existing fiction section now. Also, the other Shinigami(5e class) is marked for deletion because of being abandoned, but was unsure if we could get back to just being called Shinigami since that one was abandoned. -- [[User:Wes1996|Wes1996]] ([[User talk:Wes1996|talk]]) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (EST)<br />
:Edit: Just noticed that by taking the tag away for it being completed, it puts it up in the chart. I didn't know that happened. I am sorry if you were meant to do that and I did it. -- Wes1996<br />
:No, you are free to take the tag off once you feel the class is finished. As for the existing one, once it is deleted, we can probably move yours from variant to the regular page. Thanks.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 09:25, 2 October 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Invitation to Participate in Rlyeh Development ==<br />
<br />
I'm interested in starting an environment or campaign development of "Sunken Rlyeh.” I’m contacting you because you have in the past created Lovecraft/Cthulhu-related material, or otherwise indicated some interest in the topic; so I’m hopeful that you would be interested in supporting and participating in this development effort.<br />
<br />
I have developed some ideas about the nature of this underwater city, its inhabitants, and some special rules pertaining to interactions and the city's non-Euclidean geometry. I've also made some encounter tables and a table of city locations/structures. The concept is that below the surface of a prime material ocean, at the point farthest from any surface landmass, is a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water. On the other side of the gate is the city of Rlyeh, which sank and reformed itself as an underwater sphere. The sunken city is dark and sinister and slimy, and filled with many horrific denizens (but appropriate for the level of the adventuring party).<br />
<br />
The encounter tables include one for the prime material ocean surface, a deep water table appropriate for either side of the gate area, and one for the city itself. The encounters include creatures from standard 5e material, as well as many D&D Wiki creatures.<br />
<br />
I think that the effort could be successful even if contributions from multiple authors are contradictory, because… well, it’s Rlyeh. My notion is that there would be sub-categories like creatures/inhabitants, movement and vision/visability rules, geography (structures, distances, etc), encounters, traps, and the like. Any author could place relevant material in an existing category, or create a new one. I’m hopeful that any material deposited could be used with slight or no modification. Conflicting rules or other info could be optional and at the DM’s discretion, or only applicable in certain locations in the city, or whatever.<br />
<br />
Please reply if you are interested in participating in this activity.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 20:18, 8 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:Haha, another Lovecraft lover eh? Sure, I'd be happy to collaborate. But I would be most grateful if we fixed "non euclidean" since mathematics was not Lovecrafts strong point. Non-euclidean is just 3D life, which is what we live in. What is truly weird and horrifying is a Euclidean world where it is all flat!<br />
:Back to the idea, campaign settings are incredibly tough to do and usually encompass entire countries rather than a city. It is still possible, just on a smaller scale. I would be happy to help but I won't be able to get the ball rolling since I am working on other projects at the moment. I can contribute in bits and pieces. Hit me up when you start!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I have created "Sunken Rlyeh (5e Environment)" and entered what I have so far, except for the four tables. I would appreciate if you take a look and make whatever contributions you have time to make... I would also appreciate if you can point me in the right direction on getting Excel tables into the right format for the wiki... I'm going to stick with the "non-Euclidean" part of the description, since that is the way Mr. Lovecraft described it. I'll await his return and ask for clarification. Or if you can come up with something that better describes it, have at it! BTW, "Flatland" was a weird place, very repressive... --[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:::Haha, fair. Ah excel tables? I can make the usual tables, which could function about the same. I'll take a look!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:05, 10 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:::Thanks for the table entries; I was able to see how to reformat my Excel "locations" table and get it entered. It was a pain but I figured out how to do it somewhat universally and then save the excel as a MSDOS text file with space delimiting. Then it was a matter of correcting my many syntax errors... Next question: I would like to enter the encounter tables in separate areas (or maybe all three in one area) and link to them from the Sunken Rlyeh environment page. Each encounter table has another table with encounter descriptions and I'm thinking it would start to get cumbersome to have everything at the same level. Where/how might I store a table or tables so I can link them? Thanks again...--[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 16:13, 11 November 2020 (MST)<br />
::::I'll make a supplement page for that then.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 17:18, 11 November 2020 (MST)<br />
==Insectaur==<br />
--[[User:DontAllowMe|DontAllowMe]] ([User talk:DontAllowMe|talk]]) 3:12, December 3 2020<br />
: Hey, why'd you get rid of the changes I did to Insectaur? I actually spent time on those.<br />
::Your changes unbalanced the race. Adding so much ASI and extra abilities like superior darkvision, extra speed, and flying speed is extremely overpowering, especially since it counts by unconventional minutes and scales over the typical levels.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Upsetting Article ==<br />
<br />
Hello Yanied,<br />
<br />
I am writing you concerning the following article: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lizardfolk_Biology_(Paludia_Supplement)<br />
<br />
It was brought to my attention after one of my fellow players was looking for information regarding her race in DnD, she had stumbled onto this article believing it to be the official class. We’ve all made this mistake at least once, we’re not concerned with her not recognizing this wiki’s purpose. Instead we (her entire DnD group) were appalled with the content of this page. This race is written with an inherent sexist bias that is unrealistic and harmful. It isn’t super clear on your Warning Policy page if this sort of speech is accepted. <br />
<br />
Here are a few of the upsetting ideals written into this race:<br />
<br />
“Hence, '''the lizardfolk have inferior endurance, especially the females,''' who have even more serious problems metabolizing lactic acid. In a long fight, a lizardfolk will tire faster than a human and will probably retreat if the fight isn't won in a couple of minutes.”<br />
<br />
“An average male requires an average of 8 hours of sleep, while a female requires an average of 10 hours of sleep, '''although many females prefer to sleep for 12 hours'''.”<br />
<br />
"Without exception, within the same species, male lizardfolk are larger, heavier, stronger, faster, more durable, more resistant to pain, fatigue and sickness, and less easily tired than female lizardfolk. Additionally, male lizardfolk have higher average intelligence and are wiser than female lizardfolk. This is due to the need for the males to do the hunting and fighting for the tribe. Additionally, male lizardfolk naturally live longer than females, but the habits of war and violence tend to equalize their lifespans with the females. '''In no case does a female lizardfolk ever control a tribe, clan, or village; the purpose of the female lizardfolk consorts is to make heirs, not to rule.''' If a chief were to die and a daughter or wife was his only relative, then the strongest males would fight to see which one of them was the strongest, and the winner would become the new chief.<br />
<br />
It should be obvious that male lizardfolk are excellent front line soldiers. With more strength and constitution than an average human, they ought to make great fighters. At home, they are excellent hunters and fishers, and can apply their hunting skills to aid whatever party of adventurers they may join. The males can also make skilled rangers.<br />
<br />
'''Female lizardfolk are often unable to take care of themselves''', as they aren't very good at competing with males for hunting or fishing grounds; the very few that have ever tried have been outclassed in every way. As a result, they have to find a mate or else depend on male relatives. In isolation, a female lizardfolk actually would be able to do some hunting or fishing, but even the least competition from a male will be enough to see her outdone. '''Female lizardfolk are more flexible than their male counterparts, but not nearly so much so that they would get any bonus to dexterity because of it.'''<br />
<br />
'''For game purposes, to get the stats of a female lizardfolk, first calculate the stats normally for the male, and then factor in the following:<br />
<br />
-4 strength, -4 constitution, -2 intelligence, -2 wisdom. Female lizardfolk also only have +2 natural armor instead of the male +5 natural armor (in common lizardfolk, but in no case do females have more than, or as much natural armor as the males, no matter the species.)''' Females can only hold their breath for only three times its constitution score before drowning (instead of 4X for the male.) '''Females by necessity, are supposed to lay eggs and raise children''', thus ensuring the continued survival of the race. Biologically, this necessitates certain physiological adjustments that may impede the females from combat, but in no way reduce their value to the race; in fact, t'''heir value actually increases in some ways because they can lay eggs.''' Lizardfolk females are acutely aware of this, and very few females will live their lives without reproducing.<br />
<br />
In comparison to a human, a typical female lizardfolk has -2 strength, constitution, wisdom, and -4 intelligence (minimum of 3). In an adventuring party, this can prove to be quite a problem. Being neither good at combat nor skilled in magic, '''the female lizardfolk would at first glance appear to be a liability for any party'''. However, this weakness can be turned into a strength... of a sort. Having little combat proficiency frees the female lizardfolk PCs from having to develop such skills, enabling them to class as bards and rogues and develop other skills. With little need to give them fighting skills, one can develop a female character's non-combat skills, and use them to the party's advantage. '''Female Paludian lizardfolk bards receive a +2 charisma bonus upon entering that class and lose it when leaving it.''' This reflects the exotic, eye-catching nature of the females; this is only able to be exploited by a class which requires the female to be looked at and paid attention to. For a female fighter or paladin, appearance and grace matter less, and the rest of the world knows it, '''so only the bard would logically receive a bonus for being eye-catching in a performance.<br />
'''<br />
Skills for the female lizardfolk that are worth focusing on include Balance, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Gather information, Move Silently,Open Lock, Perform, and Sleight of hand. Chances are, one can easily fit an exotic, alluring female lizardfolk into a party, especially if one's party needs someone agile and charismatic (while there is no particular bonus for dexterity, it ought to be focused on in order to make the PC worthwhile.) These can be good PCs because they can excel in certain niche roles that a party might need from time to time, such as having to send someone to balance on a narrow plank in order to get an item, or having to sneak through a dark room.<br />
<br />
'''During the prime mating season (spring, roughly 1/4 of the year), females receive a special +4 modifier to certain charisma checks to represent the release of pheromones and their greater desire to mate (though females always wish to mate more than the males do, but even more so during mating season), but it wears off after the season ends.''' In the wider world, female lizardfolk are considered to be rare, exotic and eye-catching, whereas the ferocious males simply intimidate and frighten others. Hence, the outside observer can see a dichotomy between the two roles of the lizardfolk sexes; male strength vs female exoticness.<br />
<br />
There is one native Paludian class which allows female lizardfolk to circumvent some of their disadvantages, that of the Hierodule, a divine casting class with no offensive capability. The education required for this class enables the females to avoid the -2 intelligence and -2 wisdom penalty, and this will apply only for the female if her first class is that of Heirodule. For no other class does the training for being a Heirodule apply, so if the female should switch classes, the penalties to intelligence and wisdom apply."<br />
<br />
“Like all other species of lizardfolk, the males are much heavier, larger, stronger, and more durable in every way than the females, who only weigh between 90-120 pounds (on average), are at least a foot shorter, are nowhere near as strong, and have softer skin, weaker bones, and less resistance to pain, fatigue, and injury. The females also have a lesser capacity for logic and reason, being creatures of hormones, feelings, and passions. The common lizardfolk are the most numerous type of in Paludia, forming a plurality of the entire lizardfolk population in Paludia.”<br />
<br />
I understand the desire to create races that mimic animals and cultures but no animal puts this strong of a disadvantage on all females. This article appears to be written with a ridiculous amount of harmful language and ideals towards females. It explicitly states that women of this race are useless for all things other than mating, it frequently uses the problematic work “exotic” and only gives women any use if they are used as a sex object as a bard and any advantage they get from that goes away if they leave the party. I’m not sure if the class started this way or was added later. Regardless, it seems inappropriate to have an article like this for a game that should be about inclusion and acceptance.<br />
<br />
I am posting this for all of the moderators so the article can be reviewed. I understand if this isn’t found to be against your community guidelines but please do consider the harm this type of article might impose on someone who might be quick to make parallels with human females or young females who might believe this about themselves.<br />
<br />
Thank you {{unsigned|ConcernedViewer}}<br />
<br />
:I've handled this. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 21:36, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
::Ah thanks, geo--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:55, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Vikkalli ==<br />
Hello. Thank you very much for helping out with my [[Vikkalli (5e Race|Vikkalli]] race. I've been having a lot of stuff happening as Christmas comes to a head, so this is very much appreciated.--[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 17:49, 22 December 2020 (MST)<br />
:Ah, no problem! It was a good idea that wasn't the typical run of the mill race so I was glad to work on it!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Bewilderbeast ==<br />
Hi. Since you have helped me out in the past, I was wondering if you could help me with CR and Hit Point calculations of my [[Bewilderbeast (5e Creature)|Bewilderbeast]] monster? --[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (MST)<br />
:Sure. I've fixed the hit dice to a d100 as per mythic rules and thus derived cr from the same rules. Hope this helps! It still needs all the proficiency bonuses and modifiers added for skills and damage averages for some.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Scarcaster ==<br />
Hi. I've been working on this class called a [[Scarcaster (5e Class)|Scarcaster]] and would like your help finishing it up, if that's alright. Specifically, I was wondering if you could help me with the Spirit of the Root and Spirit of the Elements subclasses and thus finishing up the class. For the Roots, I don't have a feature to gain from level 18 and I wanted to give it additional potions that it can brew (that's something scarcasters can do at level 9) and I have no ideas for what to do in that regard. For the Elemental Spirit, I wanted something comparable to the Gale Force Fist, in that it isn't a spell, but I don't want to make it like the Way of Four Elements Monk. Any suggestions and sorry to bother you. --[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (MST)<br />
:In lite of this question, I have since come up with things for the Elemental Spirit. I just need help with the Roots spirit now.--[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 12:46, 17 March 2021 (MST)<br />
::I'll take a look -b --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 13:43, 17 March 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Problematic User ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Yanied. I hate being the bringer of bad news to the admins yet again, but a [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Plywood_tank certain user] has violated the behavioral policy in multiple ways in [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Naruto:_Shinobi_(5e_Class)&curid=131546&diff=1455977&oldid=1455967|this edit]], which I have presented on their [[User talk:Plywood tank|talk page]], and I would appreciate an admin's eyes (and potentially action) on the whole situation.--[[User:Ref3rence|Ref3rence]] ([[User talk:Ref3rence|talk]]) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I've given a warning on the subject for now. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:44, 1 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Drawings Requested ==<br />
<br />
I have noticed that you have provided drawings on some wiki pages you have edited. I would like to request some drawings for some of my own. Could you make drawings for all the creatures in the [[Flaming_Tundra_(5e_Environment)|Flaming Tundra]], an environment I created, except for the fire-bellied tortle hunter, trapper, and mage (make a single drawing for the subrace itself)? If not, do you have any suggestions of someone who can help me? Also, feel free to make any small edits you see necessary to improve the articles. Thank you for your time and consideration. - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Cool creations. I draw for commissions if they are more complex than a sketch. What kind of art do you have in mind? --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:22, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
A simple drawing of each creature, with no background. A sketch would sufice. - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Ok, sure. I'll be using the creature descriptions as my only guide. When I'm done, I'll post them up. Sound good?--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:28, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
Perfect! Thanks for the help! - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 12:38, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:All creatures and the subrace now have images.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
They're great! Thanks a million! - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 22:40, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Glad you like 'em -b -[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:07, 23 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Frost Bringer ==<br />
<br />
Hello Yanied. You put a temp lock on the Frost Bringer class today. I was the original creator of the class and had months ago finished it and put a request for no further edits to it. I just yesterday noticed that my class had been changed to a major degree and I wanted to return it to how I left it. The people who changed it have undone all attempts to recover my original content and have refused to take their changes to a variant of the class. They are now saying that I must move my content to my user page and that I can’t publish it in the public section because it doesn’t match their standards for balanced. --[[User:Silverking|Silverking]] ([[User talk:Silverking|talk]]) 21:39, 25 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:*It's not like you can't "recover" your version, hell, it's [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Frost_Bringer_(5e_Class)&oldid=1475920 right here]. <br />
:*If we made a variant to fix the page, we'd have a functional version and a non-functional version(by your own admittance), so that doesn't really work out. <br />
:*I can understand precedent and original intent, but functionality still comes first, and as I understand, the class still mostly works the same, barring a few instant death things.<br />
:It's a shame we're coming here now. I thought this could be handled with civility. That offer for help with userpages is still there, though. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
::Hello SilverKing. Yes, I locked the page temporarily due to the edit war brewing. While balance is a thing of ambiguity, the wiki does try to feature balanced content that users can enjoy without worry of breaking the game, hence the function of templates and community constructive criticism. If the content is compared to first-party content, there can be high-quality critiques made with valid points. User pages, on the other hand, are for personal usage and not subject to public scrutiny. Therefore if you make imbalanced content and wish to keep it so, it is recommended they be user pages. Otherwise, they are subject to rigorous scrutiny.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 10:01, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
::If the removal of content and replacement of completely different content is what is considered as balancing on this site I no longer feel comfortable putting any of my content on this site<br />
::I still feel that my original class was perfectly playable as most of its abilities could be replicated in some capacity within first party content.<br />
::If their goal was really to balance my content there are many different ways that could have been achieved instead the first thing that was said to me by them was that I no longer had any right to the work. They also made it clear that any changes I made would be immediately undone. They did not go into the class and mark what they felt was unbalance they just flat out undid my work. <br />
::I understand that it is this site's goal to present the best content it can but I also understand that ultimately it the Dungeon Master at every table that will decide how a home brewed class is played at their table. If my content is seen as unbalanced by them then they will change it for their game. If other people want to add optional changes to my content on its page then I welcome it as long as they don't go removing mine just because they don't like it.--[[User:Silverking|Silverking]] ([[User talk:Silverking|talk]]) 10:55, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not entirely sure about the balance, as that would be up for discussion on the class talk page. As for editing, while it generally is better etiquette to leave a note about changes to be made, we also encourage a "be bold" editing policy. We also try to present more balanced material on the public front even if it can be playtested further because, otherwise, you're putting out products and expecting the players to do all the work themselves. There are standards of objective balance in the game, and users are encouraged to look at those when making content comparable to first-party.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:13, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hetzi Dracon Flavor Help ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 5e race called Hetzi Dracon, and I could use help with the flavor of it, can you help? Thank you in advance! --[[User:Bowler1234|Bowler1234]] ([[User talk:Bowler1234|talk]]) 11:13, 23 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I'll give it a look over sure.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:30, 23 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hawkone5 Nonsense ==<br />
<br />
Seriously, Hawkone5 absolutely didn't come from me, and whoever did that whole nonsense on ''my'' talk page is probably just messing around trying too make me look like an immature prankster. I have never made a username other than Enduringone5.<br />
<br />
Believe me on this, please. Best of luck.<br />
<br />
[[User:Enduringone5|Enduringone5]] ([[User talk:Enduringone5|talk]]) 00:11, 21 October 2021 (MDT)Enduringone5<br />
:It definitely came from your account, if not to your knowledge. I suggest you see if you had any more edits made that you were not aware of, but they are definitely logged as your actions.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:03, 21 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
<br />
Can you help me to find pictures I can put on my stats. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]])<br />
:Sure. Which pages need pictures?--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:06, 21 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture use ==<br />
<br />
The [[Spawn Of Gia (5e Creature)|Spawn Of Gia]], it says the picture I put on it can't be used. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]]) 18:29, 22 October 2021<br />
:The uploaded picture is unattributed. Do you have the source by any chance? Unless you own the image. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 17:54, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I got the image online. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]]) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:You should find the source or find a picture with a source instead to replace it. When you do, you can tell me or I can help you find an alternative. - - [[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:37, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
::I have replaced it with a sourced image.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:55, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding Changes on Blessed Narehate (5e_race) ==<br />
<br />
I have noticed the changes you made to certain abilites and to the page itself. Although, the reason why it had immunity to curses was because me and my friend realised there aren't many curses that use saving throws. I envy the other changes you made, especially because I am new to making content, but I would kindly ask you to reconsider the change you made against the immunity. If you were to still think it's ballanced with the edits you set out, I would like you to explain why would immunity to curses would be too unballanced.--[[User:AverageHuntress|AverageHuntress]] ([[User talk:AverageHuntress|talk]]) 22:09, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:That's true that curses aren't much or well-used in dnd. I suppose it is a fair point since resistance to a common damage type would actually be more advantageous in that case.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mr. Vandal in Secret ==<br />
<br />
Yanied, I have just uncovered an attacker who needs blocked immediately: Stareater666. Their [[Filthy Goblin Pest (5e Creature)]] page is a vandal page. I doubt its a coincidence that the goblin's tag was "nimda" whcich is admin spelled backward. Also, from reading the description and all that, I could see it was designed to criticize wiki admins and make them look like careless and hateful idiots who block users for no reason. Lastly, that "chant" in the description had a "3" next to it, and as it turns out, if you skip every 3 letters in that chant nonsense you get the letters to spell "i hate nuke the earth it is filthy jerk". I doubt that was an accident. Stareater is probably another 666 vandal or sockpuppet of AcidRat12345. Hopefully you find this helpful. --[[User:MythicActions2000|MythicActions2000]] ([[User talk:MythicActions2000|talk]]) 23:18, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I've handled this already. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:34, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
::Interesting.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 00:23, 24 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Creatures taken off the main searches ==<br />
<br />
Is it necessary for [[Shayde the Devastator (5e Creature)|these]] [[Firewave (5e Creature)|here]] [[Azathoth (5e Creature)|four]] [[Ancient Devourer (5e Creature)|creatures]] to have <nowiki>|nocategory</nowiki> on them, just wondering? I noticed that someone undid that. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:Yes, that nocategory parameter is what tells people the pages are specially made for supplements only, as it prevents them from appearing on the main search.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
::I will talk to them abou this--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:26, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok. I do also agree with you. And that user says that even super overpowered/mythic stuff should have categories. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:28, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:::I think they might have forgotten a previous conversation we had about it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:30, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Got that. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Yep, I wasn't aware/forgot that a conversation was had over them, but the mythic monsters had categories so I assumed those creatures should have categories too. Feel free to undo my edit.--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 14:33, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:::::Cool, gotcha.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:34, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thank you for handling it. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:35, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Unacceptable Page ==<br />
Hey, Yanied, can you delete [[Ogre Shit|this page]]? See the page for why. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:Cool, someone else took care of it - b - - [[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 10:57, 28 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==You ruined my Race!==<br />
I created my race, the Medrosakal, back in 2nd Edition. I nerfed it WAY down so Admin would accept it. When they finally did, it was perfect, and then YOU came in and made it COMPLETELY UNRECOGNIZABLE! Now they Admin locked it so I can’t correct MY OWN RACE and I have to fight just to get it back to normal! DON’T TOUCH MY STUFF AGAIN!!! --[[User:DarkSyde1369|DarkSyde1369]] ([[User talk:DarkSyde1369|talk]]) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:Keep it civil, darksyde. Allow me to refer you to the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]. I would also note that the page was created by an unidentified IP address, and that said IP address has no link to your account - therefore, we would have to take your word for it, which is rather difficult to do without proof. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 17:31, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
::Moved to the [[Talk:Medrosakal (5e Race)|talk page]] for reference.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:21, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Thanks for the assist==<br />
<br />
You've helped format a lot of my stuff lately, just wanted to say thanks for that. Still learning how to do stuff, but at least soon enough I'll be able to build on my own keyboard. At least they won't be piling up on anybody's list of "things to go through and delete" or whatever. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:No problem. It's mostly practice in the end.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:37, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Christmas==<br />
<br />
I already have the reindeer and the elves (mine are Tinker Gnomes). Also, I have MOST of the monsters (mostly animated broken toys and ice golems). The biggest problem is that I don't have an idea for the big villain. I can't picture who would hate Christmas ( or at least Santa) enough to disrupt Christmas. [[User:Redrum|Redrum]] ([[User talk:Redrum|talk]]) 17:17, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:Theoretically, you could re-skin a {{5e|pit fiend}} to be something like Krampus. Or re-skin Bel, former lord of Avernus, if you want something stronger.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:25, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
::I'll try that!!! [[User:Redrum|Redrum]] ([[User talk:Redrum|talk]]) 16:42, 29 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer Template==<br />
Yanied, what is the formula or code or whatever it is for the design disclaimer? I need the template for it just in case I have another race that needs it.--[[User:DarkSyde1369|DarkSyde1369]] ([[User talk:DarkSyde1369|talk]]) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:<nowiki>{{Design Disclaimer|<!--edition-->|<!--reason-->}}</nowiki>--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:48, 14 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== You DELETED my favorite prestige class - FireBorn 3.5e! :( ==<br />
Yaneid, WHY did you just now delete this PRESTIGE class? I need at least a backup copy of it if you are going to purge it forever -- is it gone forever? You just deleted it and it was one of my most favorite classes and 1 of my games needs it! :( <br />
[[User:ProphetPX|-- ProphetPX]] ([[User talk:ProphetPX|talk]]) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:You do realize it was not deleted per se(but it could, judging from abandoned tag and all), just moved and reworked to 5e? Right here: [[Fire Born (5e Subclass)|HERE]]. You can find it's old description in history tab. Also, I'm pretty sure nothing on this wiki is permanently lost, even if deleted. And all of this was written on the page of this prestige class too :/ --[[User:Cezaryx|Cezaryx]] ([[User talk:Cezaryx|talk]]) 06:34, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
::If you've got interest in finishing the original, it can be restored if you wish. Otherwise, the history tab works fine. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:::The original thing had empty fluff sections in the adaptation bit that were left unfixed. I have posted a link to an archived copy of it to your [[User talk:ProphetPX|talk page]].--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:00, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Propability is a thing in Dungeons and Dragons==<br />
Hey, so I went into all races, picked three at random, to check if anything is out of place, balancing is well and good, it's not left unfinished, all that jazz. 3 races at random from the list of all races. All three of them had an art included made by you. Really, what were the odds? --[[User:Cezaryx|Cezaryx]] ([[User talk:Cezaryx|talk]]) 07:44, 3 February 2022 (MST)<br />
:Amazing. I don't even remember making that many... --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 18:17, 3 February 2022 (MST)<br />
==Nymph II Templates==<br />
Hi I am Michaellai and I wanted to say that Yanied was not nice to me as a beginner in dnd wiki<br />
I wanted to team up with u{{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I apologize if my curtness is unwelcoming. If you need help with 3.5e, be sure to ask a helper on the [[Help:Help Page|helper list]] in the appropriate edition for tips.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:29, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hey are u a Nerd or Geek, I’m A nerd ==<br />
<br />
Dood I am More nerdy than I’m geeky, cause I read Tolkien books and has a lot of knowledge about monsters from different countries. So if any of u, fellow dnd wikians, maybe take some time talking about that.</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanied&diff=1576926User talk:Yanied2022-03-03T07:26:47Z<p>Michaellai: /* Hey are u a Nerd or Geek, I’m A nerd */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div><s>''Wie gehts?''</s> Ahem, I mean, what's up? Thanks for dropping by.<br />
__TOC__<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 40)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Difficulty with the subclass I created with a player ==<br />
I'm struggling to keep a subclass I created a little over a year ago (Oath of rot) true to what it was, after me and the player I made it with went back for a rules question we found the class was completely changed and while some of the flavor writing was good, we had to revert it back to the original as it had nearly none of the original aspects left I did however keep the changes in a separate page called the oath of the decaying and referenced such in the talk page, I've come back this morning to find the changes to the page back to how they were before I reverted them with a protection on the page saying we should use the talk page to sort this out, but I already have used the talk page. i have a session coming up today and would hopefully like the page unprotected so I can revert the changes back to what they should be. --[[User:Varuun|Varuun]] 12 September 2021<br />
:It seems to have been resolved and the page is unlocked so cheers.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 13:39, 12 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Question on how to proceed ==<br />
I noticed that you left comments about the state of [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ozvaldo_von_Hrafnavines_(5e_Creature) Oz] and while the wording of the features can easily be fixed I was wondering if it would be best to explain how the companion works and have the various features stay within the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Electro_Vision_User_(5e_Class)#The_Outworld_Traveler class]. If it's fine to have a separate creature page in this mannor, then aside from wording, how would I fix some of the link formating and properly explaining of how it would work in terms of 5e mechanics? -- [[User:ThighRash|ThighRash]] ([[User talk:ThighRash|talk]])<br />
:If you want, I can have the stuff moved over to the proper class page. It might be more appropriate to call it the raven familiar there.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:23, 3 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Shinigami, Variant ==<br />
We,my friends and I, have finished the Shinigami, Variant(5e class). We would love if it could be moved up to the finished classes based on existing fiction section now. Also, the other Shinigami(5e class) is marked for deletion because of being abandoned, but was unsure if we could get back to just being called Shinigami since that one was abandoned. -- [[User:Wes1996|Wes1996]] ([[User talk:Wes1996|talk]]) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (EST)<br />
:Edit: Just noticed that by taking the tag away for it being completed, it puts it up in the chart. I didn't know that happened. I am sorry if you were meant to do that and I did it. -- Wes1996<br />
:No, you are free to take the tag off once you feel the class is finished. As for the existing one, once it is deleted, we can probably move yours from variant to the regular page. Thanks.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 09:25, 2 October 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Invitation to Participate in Rlyeh Development ==<br />
<br />
I'm interested in starting an environment or campaign development of "Sunken Rlyeh.” I’m contacting you because you have in the past created Lovecraft/Cthulhu-related material, or otherwise indicated some interest in the topic; so I’m hopeful that you would be interested in supporting and participating in this development effort.<br />
<br />
I have developed some ideas about the nature of this underwater city, its inhabitants, and some special rules pertaining to interactions and the city's non-Euclidean geometry. I've also made some encounter tables and a table of city locations/structures. The concept is that below the surface of a prime material ocean, at the point farthest from any surface landmass, is a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water. On the other side of the gate is the city of Rlyeh, which sank and reformed itself as an underwater sphere. The sunken city is dark and sinister and slimy, and filled with many horrific denizens (but appropriate for the level of the adventuring party).<br />
<br />
The encounter tables include one for the prime material ocean surface, a deep water table appropriate for either side of the gate area, and one for the city itself. The encounters include creatures from standard 5e material, as well as many D&D Wiki creatures.<br />
<br />
I think that the effort could be successful even if contributions from multiple authors are contradictory, because… well, it’s Rlyeh. My notion is that there would be sub-categories like creatures/inhabitants, movement and vision/visability rules, geography (structures, distances, etc), encounters, traps, and the like. Any author could place relevant material in an existing category, or create a new one. I’m hopeful that any material deposited could be used with slight or no modification. Conflicting rules or other info could be optional and at the DM’s discretion, or only applicable in certain locations in the city, or whatever.<br />
<br />
Please reply if you are interested in participating in this activity.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 20:18, 8 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:Haha, another Lovecraft lover eh? Sure, I'd be happy to collaborate. But I would be most grateful if we fixed "non euclidean" since mathematics was not Lovecrafts strong point. Non-euclidean is just 3D life, which is what we live in. What is truly weird and horrifying is a Euclidean world where it is all flat!<br />
:Back to the idea, campaign settings are incredibly tough to do and usually encompass entire countries rather than a city. It is still possible, just on a smaller scale. I would be happy to help but I won't be able to get the ball rolling since I am working on other projects at the moment. I can contribute in bits and pieces. Hit me up when you start!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I have created "Sunken Rlyeh (5e Environment)" and entered what I have so far, except for the four tables. I would appreciate if you take a look and make whatever contributions you have time to make... I would also appreciate if you can point me in the right direction on getting Excel tables into the right format for the wiki... I'm going to stick with the "non-Euclidean" part of the description, since that is the way Mr. Lovecraft described it. I'll await his return and ask for clarification. Or if you can come up with something that better describes it, have at it! BTW, "Flatland" was a weird place, very repressive... --[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:::Haha, fair. Ah excel tables? I can make the usual tables, which could function about the same. I'll take a look!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:05, 10 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:::Thanks for the table entries; I was able to see how to reformat my Excel "locations" table and get it entered. It was a pain but I figured out how to do it somewhat universally and then save the excel as a MSDOS text file with space delimiting. Then it was a matter of correcting my many syntax errors... Next question: I would like to enter the encounter tables in separate areas (or maybe all three in one area) and link to them from the Sunken Rlyeh environment page. Each encounter table has another table with encounter descriptions and I'm thinking it would start to get cumbersome to have everything at the same level. Where/how might I store a table or tables so I can link them? Thanks again...--[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 16:13, 11 November 2020 (MST)<br />
::::I'll make a supplement page for that then.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 17:18, 11 November 2020 (MST)<br />
==Insectaur==<br />
--[[User:DontAllowMe|DontAllowMe]] ([User talk:DontAllowMe|talk]]) 3:12, December 3 2020<br />
: Hey, why'd you get rid of the changes I did to Insectaur? I actually spent time on those.<br />
::Your changes unbalanced the race. Adding so much ASI and extra abilities like superior darkvision, extra speed, and flying speed is extremely overpowering, especially since it counts by unconventional minutes and scales over the typical levels.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Upsetting Article ==<br />
<br />
Hello Yanied,<br />
<br />
I am writing you concerning the following article: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lizardfolk_Biology_(Paludia_Supplement)<br />
<br />
It was brought to my attention after one of my fellow players was looking for information regarding her race in DnD, she had stumbled onto this article believing it to be the official class. We’ve all made this mistake at least once, we’re not concerned with her not recognizing this wiki’s purpose. Instead we (her entire DnD group) were appalled with the content of this page. This race is written with an inherent sexist bias that is unrealistic and harmful. It isn’t super clear on your Warning Policy page if this sort of speech is accepted. <br />
<br />
Here are a few of the upsetting ideals written into this race:<br />
<br />
“Hence, '''the lizardfolk have inferior endurance, especially the females,''' who have even more serious problems metabolizing lactic acid. In a long fight, a lizardfolk will tire faster than a human and will probably retreat if the fight isn't won in a couple of minutes.”<br />
<br />
“An average male requires an average of 8 hours of sleep, while a female requires an average of 10 hours of sleep, '''although many females prefer to sleep for 12 hours'''.”<br />
<br />
"Without exception, within the same species, male lizardfolk are larger, heavier, stronger, faster, more durable, more resistant to pain, fatigue and sickness, and less easily tired than female lizardfolk. Additionally, male lizardfolk have higher average intelligence and are wiser than female lizardfolk. This is due to the need for the males to do the hunting and fighting for the tribe. Additionally, male lizardfolk naturally live longer than females, but the habits of war and violence tend to equalize their lifespans with the females. '''In no case does a female lizardfolk ever control a tribe, clan, or village; the purpose of the female lizardfolk consorts is to make heirs, not to rule.''' If a chief were to die and a daughter or wife was his only relative, then the strongest males would fight to see which one of them was the strongest, and the winner would become the new chief.<br />
<br />
It should be obvious that male lizardfolk are excellent front line soldiers. With more strength and constitution than an average human, they ought to make great fighters. At home, they are excellent hunters and fishers, and can apply their hunting skills to aid whatever party of adventurers they may join. The males can also make skilled rangers.<br />
<br />
'''Female lizardfolk are often unable to take care of themselves''', as they aren't very good at competing with males for hunting or fishing grounds; the very few that have ever tried have been outclassed in every way. As a result, they have to find a mate or else depend on male relatives. In isolation, a female lizardfolk actually would be able to do some hunting or fishing, but even the least competition from a male will be enough to see her outdone. '''Female lizardfolk are more flexible than their male counterparts, but not nearly so much so that they would get any bonus to dexterity because of it.'''<br />
<br />
'''For game purposes, to get the stats of a female lizardfolk, first calculate the stats normally for the male, and then factor in the following:<br />
<br />
-4 strength, -4 constitution, -2 intelligence, -2 wisdom. Female lizardfolk also only have +2 natural armor instead of the male +5 natural armor (in common lizardfolk, but in no case do females have more than, or as much natural armor as the males, no matter the species.)''' Females can only hold their breath for only three times its constitution score before drowning (instead of 4X for the male.) '''Females by necessity, are supposed to lay eggs and raise children''', thus ensuring the continued survival of the race. Biologically, this necessitates certain physiological adjustments that may impede the females from combat, but in no way reduce their value to the race; in fact, t'''heir value actually increases in some ways because they can lay eggs.''' Lizardfolk females are acutely aware of this, and very few females will live their lives without reproducing.<br />
<br />
In comparison to a human, a typical female lizardfolk has -2 strength, constitution, wisdom, and -4 intelligence (minimum of 3). In an adventuring party, this can prove to be quite a problem. Being neither good at combat nor skilled in magic, '''the female lizardfolk would at first glance appear to be a liability for any party'''. However, this weakness can be turned into a strength... of a sort. Having little combat proficiency frees the female lizardfolk PCs from having to develop such skills, enabling them to class as bards and rogues and develop other skills. With little need to give them fighting skills, one can develop a female character's non-combat skills, and use them to the party's advantage. '''Female Paludian lizardfolk bards receive a +2 charisma bonus upon entering that class and lose it when leaving it.''' This reflects the exotic, eye-catching nature of the females; this is only able to be exploited by a class which requires the female to be looked at and paid attention to. For a female fighter or paladin, appearance and grace matter less, and the rest of the world knows it, '''so only the bard would logically receive a bonus for being eye-catching in a performance.<br />
'''<br />
Skills for the female lizardfolk that are worth focusing on include Balance, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Gather information, Move Silently,Open Lock, Perform, and Sleight of hand. Chances are, one can easily fit an exotic, alluring female lizardfolk into a party, especially if one's party needs someone agile and charismatic (while there is no particular bonus for dexterity, it ought to be focused on in order to make the PC worthwhile.) These can be good PCs because they can excel in certain niche roles that a party might need from time to time, such as having to send someone to balance on a narrow plank in order to get an item, or having to sneak through a dark room.<br />
<br />
'''During the prime mating season (spring, roughly 1/4 of the year), females receive a special +4 modifier to certain charisma checks to represent the release of pheromones and their greater desire to mate (though females always wish to mate more than the males do, but even more so during mating season), but it wears off after the season ends.''' In the wider world, female lizardfolk are considered to be rare, exotic and eye-catching, whereas the ferocious males simply intimidate and frighten others. Hence, the outside observer can see a dichotomy between the two roles of the lizardfolk sexes; male strength vs female exoticness.<br />
<br />
There is one native Paludian class which allows female lizardfolk to circumvent some of their disadvantages, that of the Hierodule, a divine casting class with no offensive capability. The education required for this class enables the females to avoid the -2 intelligence and -2 wisdom penalty, and this will apply only for the female if her first class is that of Heirodule. For no other class does the training for being a Heirodule apply, so if the female should switch classes, the penalties to intelligence and wisdom apply."<br />
<br />
“Like all other species of lizardfolk, the males are much heavier, larger, stronger, and more durable in every way than the females, who only weigh between 90-120 pounds (on average), are at least a foot shorter, are nowhere near as strong, and have softer skin, weaker bones, and less resistance to pain, fatigue, and injury. The females also have a lesser capacity for logic and reason, being creatures of hormones, feelings, and passions. The common lizardfolk are the most numerous type of in Paludia, forming a plurality of the entire lizardfolk population in Paludia.”<br />
<br />
I understand the desire to create races that mimic animals and cultures but no animal puts this strong of a disadvantage on all females. This article appears to be written with a ridiculous amount of harmful language and ideals towards females. It explicitly states that women of this race are useless for all things other than mating, it frequently uses the problematic work “exotic” and only gives women any use if they are used as a sex object as a bard and any advantage they get from that goes away if they leave the party. I’m not sure if the class started this way or was added later. Regardless, it seems inappropriate to have an article like this for a game that should be about inclusion and acceptance.<br />
<br />
I am posting this for all of the moderators so the article can be reviewed. I understand if this isn’t found to be against your community guidelines but please do consider the harm this type of article might impose on someone who might be quick to make parallels with human females or young females who might believe this about themselves.<br />
<br />
Thank you {{unsigned|ConcernedViewer}}<br />
<br />
:I've handled this. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 21:36, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
::Ah thanks, geo--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:55, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Vikkalli ==<br />
Hello. Thank you very much for helping out with my [[Vikkalli (5e Race|Vikkalli]] race. I've been having a lot of stuff happening as Christmas comes to a head, so this is very much appreciated.--[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 17:49, 22 December 2020 (MST)<br />
:Ah, no problem! It was a good idea that wasn't the typical run of the mill race so I was glad to work on it!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Bewilderbeast ==<br />
Hi. Since you have helped me out in the past, I was wondering if you could help me with CR and Hit Point calculations of my [[Bewilderbeast (5e Creature)|Bewilderbeast]] monster? --[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (MST)<br />
:Sure. I've fixed the hit dice to a d100 as per mythic rules and thus derived cr from the same rules. Hope this helps! It still needs all the proficiency bonuses and modifiers added for skills and damage averages for some.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Scarcaster ==<br />
Hi. I've been working on this class called a [[Scarcaster (5e Class)|Scarcaster]] and would like your help finishing it up, if that's alright. Specifically, I was wondering if you could help me with the Spirit of the Root and Spirit of the Elements subclasses and thus finishing up the class. For the Roots, I don't have a feature to gain from level 18 and I wanted to give it additional potions that it can brew (that's something scarcasters can do at level 9) and I have no ideas for what to do in that regard. For the Elemental Spirit, I wanted something comparable to the Gale Force Fist, in that it isn't a spell, but I don't want to make it like the Way of Four Elements Monk. Any suggestions and sorry to bother you. --[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (MST)<br />
:In lite of this question, I have since come up with things for the Elemental Spirit. I just need help with the Roots spirit now.--[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 12:46, 17 March 2021 (MST)<br />
::I'll take a look -b --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 13:43, 17 March 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Problematic User ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Yanied. I hate being the bringer of bad news to the admins yet again, but a [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Plywood_tank certain user] has violated the behavioral policy in multiple ways in [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Naruto:_Shinobi_(5e_Class)&curid=131546&diff=1455977&oldid=1455967|this edit]], which I have presented on their [[User talk:Plywood tank|talk page]], and I would appreciate an admin's eyes (and potentially action) on the whole situation.--[[User:Ref3rence|Ref3rence]] ([[User talk:Ref3rence|talk]]) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I've given a warning on the subject for now. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:44, 1 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Drawings Requested ==<br />
<br />
I have noticed that you have provided drawings on some wiki pages you have edited. I would like to request some drawings for some of my own. Could you make drawings for all the creatures in the [[Flaming_Tundra_(5e_Environment)|Flaming Tundra]], an environment I created, except for the fire-bellied tortle hunter, trapper, and mage (make a single drawing for the subrace itself)? If not, do you have any suggestions of someone who can help me? Also, feel free to make any small edits you see necessary to improve the articles. Thank you for your time and consideration. - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Cool creations. I draw for commissions if they are more complex than a sketch. What kind of art do you have in mind? --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:22, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
A simple drawing of each creature, with no background. A sketch would sufice. - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Ok, sure. I'll be using the creature descriptions as my only guide. When I'm done, I'll post them up. Sound good?--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:28, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
Perfect! Thanks for the help! - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 12:38, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:All creatures and the subrace now have images.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
They're great! Thanks a million! - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 22:40, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Glad you like 'em -b -[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:07, 23 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Frost Bringer ==<br />
<br />
Hello Yanied. You put a temp lock on the Frost Bringer class today. I was the original creator of the class and had months ago finished it and put a request for no further edits to it. I just yesterday noticed that my class had been changed to a major degree and I wanted to return it to how I left it. The people who changed it have undone all attempts to recover my original content and have refused to take their changes to a variant of the class. They are now saying that I must move my content to my user page and that I can’t publish it in the public section because it doesn’t match their standards for balanced. --[[User:Silverking|Silverking]] ([[User talk:Silverking|talk]]) 21:39, 25 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:*It's not like you can't "recover" your version, hell, it's [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Frost_Bringer_(5e_Class)&oldid=1475920 right here]. <br />
:*If we made a variant to fix the page, we'd have a functional version and a non-functional version(by your own admittance), so that doesn't really work out. <br />
:*I can understand precedent and original intent, but functionality still comes first, and as I understand, the class still mostly works the same, barring a few instant death things.<br />
:It's a shame we're coming here now. I thought this could be handled with civility. That offer for help with userpages is still there, though. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
::Hello SilverKing. Yes, I locked the page temporarily due to the edit war brewing. While balance is a thing of ambiguity, the wiki does try to feature balanced content that users can enjoy without worry of breaking the game, hence the function of templates and community constructive criticism. If the content is compared to first-party content, there can be high-quality critiques made with valid points. User pages, on the other hand, are for personal usage and not subject to public scrutiny. Therefore if you make imbalanced content and wish to keep it so, it is recommended they be user pages. Otherwise, they are subject to rigorous scrutiny.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 10:01, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
::If the removal of content and replacement of completely different content is what is considered as balancing on this site I no longer feel comfortable putting any of my content on this site<br />
::I still feel that my original class was perfectly playable as most of its abilities could be replicated in some capacity within first party content.<br />
::If their goal was really to balance my content there are many different ways that could have been achieved instead the first thing that was said to me by them was that I no longer had any right to the work. They also made it clear that any changes I made would be immediately undone. They did not go into the class and mark what they felt was unbalance they just flat out undid my work. <br />
::I understand that it is this site's goal to present the best content it can but I also understand that ultimately it the Dungeon Master at every table that will decide how a home brewed class is played at their table. If my content is seen as unbalanced by them then they will change it for their game. If other people want to add optional changes to my content on its page then I welcome it as long as they don't go removing mine just because they don't like it.--[[User:Silverking|Silverking]] ([[User talk:Silverking|talk]]) 10:55, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not entirely sure about the balance, as that would be up for discussion on the class talk page. As for editing, while it generally is better etiquette to leave a note about changes to be made, we also encourage a "be bold" editing policy. We also try to present more balanced material on the public front even if it can be playtested further because, otherwise, you're putting out products and expecting the players to do all the work themselves. There are standards of objective balance in the game, and users are encouraged to look at those when making content comparable to first-party.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:13, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hetzi Dracon Flavor Help ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 5e race called Hetzi Dracon, and I could use help with the flavor of it, can you help? Thank you in advance! --[[User:Bowler1234|Bowler1234]] ([[User talk:Bowler1234|talk]]) 11:13, 23 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I'll give it a look over sure.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:30, 23 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hawkone5 Nonsense ==<br />
<br />
Seriously, Hawkone5 absolutely didn't come from me, and whoever did that whole nonsense on ''my'' talk page is probably just messing around trying too make me look like an immature prankster. I have never made a username other than Enduringone5.<br />
<br />
Believe me on this, please. Best of luck.<br />
<br />
[[User:Enduringone5|Enduringone5]] ([[User talk:Enduringone5|talk]]) 00:11, 21 October 2021 (MDT)Enduringone5<br />
:It definitely came from your account, if not to your knowledge. I suggest you see if you had any more edits made that you were not aware of, but they are definitely logged as your actions.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:03, 21 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
<br />
Can you help me to find pictures I can put on my stats. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]])<br />
:Sure. Which pages need pictures?--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:06, 21 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture use ==<br />
<br />
The [[Spawn Of Gia (5e Creature)|Spawn Of Gia]], it says the picture I put on it can't be used. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]]) 18:29, 22 October 2021<br />
:The uploaded picture is unattributed. Do you have the source by any chance? Unless you own the image. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 17:54, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I got the image online. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]]) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:You should find the source or find a picture with a source instead to replace it. When you do, you can tell me or I can help you find an alternative. - - [[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:37, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
::I have replaced it with a sourced image.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:55, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding Changes on Blessed Narehate (5e_race) ==<br />
<br />
I have noticed the changes you made to certain abilites and to the page itself. Although, the reason why it had immunity to curses was because me and my friend realised there aren't many curses that use saving throws. I envy the other changes you made, especially because I am new to making content, but I would kindly ask you to reconsider the change you made against the immunity. If you were to still think it's ballanced with the edits you set out, I would like you to explain why would immunity to curses would be too unballanced.--[[User:AverageHuntress|AverageHuntress]] ([[User talk:AverageHuntress|talk]]) 22:09, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:That's true that curses aren't much or well-used in dnd. I suppose it is a fair point since resistance to a common damage type would actually be more advantageous in that case.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mr. Vandal in Secret ==<br />
<br />
Yanied, I have just uncovered an attacker who needs blocked immediately: Stareater666. Their [[Filthy Goblin Pest (5e Creature)]] page is a vandal page. I doubt its a coincidence that the goblin's tag was "nimda" whcich is admin spelled backward. Also, from reading the description and all that, I could see it was designed to criticize wiki admins and make them look like careless and hateful idiots who block users for no reason. Lastly, that "chant" in the description had a "3" next to it, and as it turns out, if you skip every 3 letters in that chant nonsense you get the letters to spell "i hate nuke the earth it is filthy jerk". I doubt that was an accident. Stareater is probably another 666 vandal or sockpuppet of AcidRat12345. Hopefully you find this helpful. --[[User:MythicActions2000|MythicActions2000]] ([[User talk:MythicActions2000|talk]]) 23:18, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I've handled this already. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:34, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
::Interesting.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 00:23, 24 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Creatures taken off the main searches ==<br />
<br />
Is it necessary for [[Shayde the Devastator (5e Creature)|these]] [[Firewave (5e Creature)|here]] [[Azathoth (5e Creature)|four]] [[Ancient Devourer (5e Creature)|creatures]] to have <nowiki>|nocategory</nowiki> on them, just wondering? I noticed that someone undid that. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:Yes, that nocategory parameter is what tells people the pages are specially made for supplements only, as it prevents them from appearing on the main search.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
::I will talk to them abou this--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:26, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok. I do also agree with you. And that user says that even super overpowered/mythic stuff should have categories. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:28, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:::I think they might have forgotten a previous conversation we had about it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:30, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Got that. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Yep, I wasn't aware/forgot that a conversation was had over them, but the mythic monsters had categories so I assumed those creatures should have categories too. Feel free to undo my edit.--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 14:33, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:::::Cool, gotcha.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:34, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thank you for handling it. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:35, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Unacceptable Page ==<br />
Hey, Yanied, can you delete [[Ogre Shit|this page]]? See the page for why. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:Cool, someone else took care of it - b - - [[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 10:57, 28 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==You ruined my Race!==<br />
I created my race, the Medrosakal, back in 2nd Edition. I nerfed it WAY down so Admin would accept it. When they finally did, it was perfect, and then YOU came in and made it COMPLETELY UNRECOGNIZABLE! Now they Admin locked it so I can’t correct MY OWN RACE and I have to fight just to get it back to normal! DON’T TOUCH MY STUFF AGAIN!!! --[[User:DarkSyde1369|DarkSyde1369]] ([[User talk:DarkSyde1369|talk]]) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:Keep it civil, darksyde. Allow me to refer you to the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]. I would also note that the page was created by an unidentified IP address, and that said IP address has no link to your account - therefore, we would have to take your word for it, which is rather difficult to do without proof. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 17:31, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
::Moved to the [[Talk:Medrosakal (5e Race)|talk page]] for reference.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:21, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Thanks for the assist==<br />
<br />
You've helped format a lot of my stuff lately, just wanted to say thanks for that. Still learning how to do stuff, but at least soon enough I'll be able to build on my own keyboard. At least they won't be piling up on anybody's list of "things to go through and delete" or whatever. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:No problem. It's mostly practice in the end.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:37, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Christmas==<br />
<br />
I already have the reindeer and the elves (mine are Tinker Gnomes). Also, I have MOST of the monsters (mostly animated broken toys and ice golems). The biggest problem is that I don't have an idea for the big villain. I can't picture who would hate Christmas ( or at least Santa) enough to disrupt Christmas. [[User:Redrum|Redrum]] ([[User talk:Redrum|talk]]) 17:17, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:Theoretically, you could re-skin a {{5e|pit fiend}} to be something like Krampus. Or re-skin Bel, former lord of Avernus, if you want something stronger.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:25, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
::I'll try that!!! [[User:Redrum|Redrum]] ([[User talk:Redrum|talk]]) 16:42, 29 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer Template==<br />
Yanied, what is the formula or code or whatever it is for the design disclaimer? I need the template for it just in case I have another race that needs it.--[[User:DarkSyde1369|DarkSyde1369]] ([[User talk:DarkSyde1369|talk]]) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:<nowiki>{{Design Disclaimer|<!--edition-->|<!--reason-->}}</nowiki>--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:48, 14 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== You DELETED my favorite prestige class - FireBorn 3.5e! :( ==<br />
Yaneid, WHY did you just now delete this PRESTIGE class? I need at least a backup copy of it if you are going to purge it forever -- is it gone forever? You just deleted it and it was one of my most favorite classes and 1 of my games needs it! :( <br />
[[User:ProphetPX|-- ProphetPX]] ([[User talk:ProphetPX|talk]]) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:You do realize it was not deleted per se(but it could, judging from abandoned tag and all), just moved and reworked to 5e? Right here: [[Fire Born (5e Subclass)|HERE]]. You can find it's old description in history tab. Also, I'm pretty sure nothing on this wiki is permanently lost, even if deleted. And all of this was written on the page of this prestige class too :/ --[[User:Cezaryx|Cezaryx]] ([[User talk:Cezaryx|talk]]) 06:34, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
::If you've got interest in finishing the original, it can be restored if you wish. Otherwise, the history tab works fine. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:::The original thing had empty fluff sections in the adaptation bit that were left unfixed. I have posted a link to an archived copy of it to your [[User talk:ProphetPX|talk page]].--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:00, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Propability is a thing in Dungeons and Dragons==<br />
Hey, so I went into all races, picked three at random, to check if anything is out of place, balancing is well and good, it's not left unfinished, all that jazz. 3 races at random from the list of all races. All three of them had an art included made by you. Really, what were the odds? --[[User:Cezaryx|Cezaryx]] ([[User talk:Cezaryx|talk]]) 07:44, 3 February 2022 (MST)<br />
:Amazing. I don't even remember making that many... --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 18:17, 3 February 2022 (MST)<br />
==Nymph II Templates==<br />
Hi I am Michaellai and I wanted to say that Yanied was not nice to me as a beginner in dnd wiki<br />
I wanted to team up with u{{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I apologize if my curtness is unwelcoming. If you need help with 3.5e, be sure to ask a helper on the [[Help:Help Page|helper list]] in the appropriate edition for tips.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:29, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hey are u a Nerd or Geek, I’m A nerd ==<br />
<br />
Dood I am More nerdy than I’m geeky, cause I read Tolkien books and has a lot of knowledge about monsters from different countries.</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1576844Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T05:03:56Z<p>Michaellai: /* Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
I don’t know how to thx u</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1576843Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T05:02:27Z<p>Michaellai: /* Yanied */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.([[User talk:Michaellai|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians<br />
:Generally, you can chat directly with users on their talk pages (tab next to user). This also essentially pings them so they will know quicker. As for privacy... well, we don't really have DMs like on social medias. Anyone can see it on the talk or changes. But that's the public nature of a wiki.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (MST)</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1576840Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T05:00:45Z<p>Michaellai: /* Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.<br />
<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1576839Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T05:00:16Z<p>Michaellai: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Hmm, well that opens up the possibility for a lot more pages.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:58, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
Yanied u are a great person, so just I’m a newer so can u teach me how u work ur arts or something I actually subscribed ur channel.<br />
<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just 10 yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1576834Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T04:57:44Z<p>Michaellai: /* Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person? {{unsigned|Michaellai}}<br />
:I'm confused where I was always insulting other users (?). Small tip, you can sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 2 March 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Teach me how to chat with users on wiki privately pls ==<br />
<br />
Guys i am a newer to dnd, I am just 10 yrs old so can u teach me fellow dnd wikians</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1576829Talk:Main Page2022-03-03T04:54:35Z<p>Michaellai: /* Yanied */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;60<br />
|label3=Discussions 61&ndash;90<br />
|label4=Discussions 91&ndash;120<br />
|label5=Discussions 121&ndash;150<br />
|label6=Discussions 151&ndash;180<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Rotation ==<br />
<br />
While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made. <br />
*The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.<br />
*Fix the featured article images so external images display.<br />
*There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.<br />
*A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.<br />
*A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.<br />
Thoughts? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)<br />
:: Agreed with all of the above ([[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))<br />
:::I like all your ideas, but since this uses the [https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Slideshow_format SMW slideshow format], I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
::::I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I implemented some of your bullet points above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are ''good'' - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using [[:Category:*]] or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's ([[Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?]]), but I doubt that is being worked on. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p<br />
<br />
::I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit [[User:SgtLion]] registered for us, [https://www.reddit.com/r/dandwiki/](reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am ''not'' suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Not sure if you're aware but there is a <nowiki>[[Category:Completed_Pages]]</nowiki>. --[[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]][[File:chatmod.png|13x13px|link=Requests_for_Adminship/ConcealedLight|alt=This user is an administrator|This user is an administrator]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::::::: I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might ''prevent'' an article from becoming a QA! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)<br />
''Discussion continued at [[Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists]]''<br />
<br />
== Redacted revisions ==<br />
<br />
Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion]. I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I ''fully'' believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
:::The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This edit [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Corollin_(5e_Race)&diff=1123984&unhide=1]] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== So, I was wondering..... ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? {{unsigned|Travis Stoll}}<br />
:Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the [[Requests for Adminship]] process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Equipment Spacing? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
:You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see [[Template talk:5e Magic Item]].--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
::Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Playtesting ==<br />
<br />
I thought it'd be a good idea to put [[User:Cotsu Malcior|Cotsu's]] [[Discussion:Playtesting Application|playtesting]] discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Once {{user|Cotsu Malcior}} is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== List of nominated articles on front page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Why is our link to the [[Featured Articles]] page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy WP:NOTDEM] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion WP:VOTE]. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean [[Main_Page|this]] page?--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
:Yeah, I'm supporting. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
:I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, ''then'' we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
== Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official ==<br />
<br />
As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:<br />
<br />
* The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"<br />
* Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor <nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki>." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.<br />
<br />
I also think the following would be advantageous:<br />
<br />
* I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.<br />
* I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
:* I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.<br />
:* It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.<br />
:* I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?<br />
:* The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.<br />
: --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::This has been discussed at length [[User talk:Admin#Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)|here]]. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently {{user|Blue Dragon}} does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.<br />
:::Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.<br />
:::The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.<br />
::: --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we ''primarily'' host user-generated content, not that we ''only'' host user-generated content. <br />
::::Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in [[:Category:User]], instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The banners are all on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page Layout ==<br />
<br />
I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.<br><br />
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?<br><br />
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.<br />
:The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.<br />
:Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
::hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter? <br><br />
::I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.<br />
::Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)<br />
<br />
== using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a noticeboard ==<br />
<br />
How might people feel about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] as a more visible place for site news, similar to the [https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fire Emblem wiki]? I get that we already have {{tl|News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=224994 MediaWiki updates], [https://fireemblemwiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&oldid=210140 community events], and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here). <br />
::I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{tl|news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.<br />
:::Are you talking about using [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.<br />
::::::If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup [[User:Geodude671/Sandbox|here]] of how this could potentially look. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. [[User:Quincy|Quincy]] ([[User talk:Quincy|talk]]) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion. <br />
:::::::::Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::{{user|Varkarrus}}, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Skin ==<br />
<br />
I propose that we implement [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|ConcealedLight's]] skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As {{user|ConcealedLight}} develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same. <br/>{{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To test the skin, copy the contents of [[User:ConcealedLight/sledged.css|this page]] into your custom sledged.css ([[User:Varkarrus/sledged.css|Varkarrus]]) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)<br />
::::Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When {{user|ConcealedLight}}'s skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::No problem, that div has been added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok, {{user|Blue Dragon}} made this change too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
:::::::::This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Thank you. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The background has now been changed to match [[User talk:Green Dragon#DandDWiki Background|this discussion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:{{user|Blue Dragon}} will make the links white soon. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::perfect! thanks :-) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''talk'']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|''contributions'']] </sup> 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)<br />
<br />
::Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Locking Product Identity Pages==<br />
I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at [[:Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion]]) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Maelstrom_%285e_Spell%29&type=revision&diff=1118309&oldid=976627 here]). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|'''''BigShotFancyMan''''']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''talk''''']] [[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|'''''contributions''''']] </sup> 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree with this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. [[User:Rorix the White|Rorix the White]] ([[User talk:Rorix the White|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Curated Lists ==<br />
<br />
What is our position on curated lists like [[3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)]]? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] <sup>[[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/BigShotFancyMan|contributions]] </sup> 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Moved Talk Page Missing ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. {{user|Blue Dragon}} knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Appreciation ==<br />
<br />
On {{user|PickleJarPete}}'s [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:PickleJarPete#D.26D_Wiki_Experience talk page] they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued. <br><br />
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by {{user|Green Dragon}} because I ''think'' such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: There's 5 extensions for page rating [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Rating_extensions here], but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
:: As an aside, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Comments this extension] also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating Semantic Rating] & [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY] the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::Actually it may have been the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::: It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. [[User:Varkarrus|Varkarrus]] ([[User talk:Varkarrus|talk]]) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Okay, {{user|Blue Dragon}} installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VoteNY VoteNY]. I propose that we test it out in a section like [[5e Races]] or [[5e Classes]], to make sure that it meets our expectations. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked over the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:MassEditRegex Mass edit using regular expressions] but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I found [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:ReplaceText Replace Text] page and did execute a change on the [[5e Traps]] to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves ''no'' tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm ''pretty sure'' we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.<br />
:It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, [[Foreclaimers (5e Race)]] was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the [[5e Races]] section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.<br />
:::1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?<br />
:::2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.<br />
:::3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.<br />
:::You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article ''before'', what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.<br />
:::::All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he <s>molds article to his liking</s> curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!? <br />
:::::And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found. <br />
:::::Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no. <br>The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."<br />
::::::2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.<br />
::::::3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.<br />
::::::4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.<br />
::::::5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.<br />
::::::6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::::::::I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just ''appreciating'' it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... {{Unsigned|GamerAim|02:02, 6 June 2019 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Is there an extension that does that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] (2:0) [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.<br />
::::::::::::::GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.<br />
:::I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Oath_of_the_Gun_%285e_Subclass%29&type=revision&diff=1185646&oldid=1185631 The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is] is only presented by {{user|Green Dragon}} which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.<br />
:::::Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?<br />
:::::Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.<br />
:::::I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.<br />
:::::I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-. <br />
::::::CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.<br />
::::::I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)<br />
::::::GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.<br />
::::::Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus. <br />
::::::This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::::To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I '''overwhelmingly''' prefer the like button. <!--<br />
:::::::A low star star rating doesn't provide any useful feedback. Giving any credance to star rating averages is so ridiculous I don't feel I should need to again explain why, and that's before considering that pages (especially "low-rated" pages) are likely to change beyond what a star system is meant to handle. Do you really expect AnonymousUser90001 to change their rating if a trash heap is improved to the point it becomes a Quality Article? Moreover having a way to meaninglessly "dislike" a page is a deterrent to feedback or criticism is actually useful. It provides a cheap outlet for criticism, which the human brain is likely to take if available instead of using the effort needed to make a comment or even insult that could actually provide workable feedback.<br />
:::::::A like button may not provide terribly useful feedback either, but it does offer an easy and simple way to provide much-needed positivity in an environment where communication most often takes the form of nerds telling other nerds their creative work isn't good enough and/or making users feel like their work was "stolen." A star system I assure you will not create positivity in any but a few instances, based both on prediction and what I've already seen. --> - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.<br />
::::::::Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now '''overwhelmingly'''). <br />
::::::::I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).<br />
::::::::I don't ''really'' mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.<br />
::::::::Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. [[User:BigShotFancyMan/Sandbox|Help: Vote]] ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received. <br />
::::::::::The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.<br />
::::::::::As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness. <br />
:::::::::::What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>''bump''* {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
::I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation. {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting? {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::::I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
<br />
::::::It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all. <br />
:::::::I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - [[User talk:Guy|Guy]] 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
::::::::Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. [[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter<br />
:::::::::It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Basically the extension I linked to below, [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful Mark as Helpful] is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful this]. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.<br />
:::::::::::The purpose is mentioned.<br />
:::::::::::Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it. <br />
:::::::::::Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."<br />
:::::::::::Currently, the [[Necromancer (5e Class)]] has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "''I have spoken.''" {{User:BigShotFancyMan/autosig}} 09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright Notice ==<br />
<br />
Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."<br />
<br />
We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The page [[MediaWiki:Copyright]]. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page title policy ==<br />
<br />
Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles]. There is a page currently being edited [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/A%CD%96%CC%9A%CC%9An%CD%8E%CC%AD%CD%8D%CC%AE%CC%BB%CC%AF%CD%AD%CD%AC%CD%AD%CD%AF%CC%92%CC%86%CD%AAo%CC%96%CC%AD%CD%82%CC%90%CC%91%CC%94m%CC%98%CC%AC%CD%96%CD%8D%CD%8E%CC%BEa%CD%96%CC%B9%CC%B9%CC%B1%CC%A0l%CC%B2%CC%B0%CD%88%CC%B1%CC%AB%CC%9D%CC%96%CC%84%CC%88%CC%93%CC%88%CC%8Ay%CC%A4%CC%A4%CC%85%CC%81%CC%8C%CD%91%CD%A5_(5e_Class)] for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ [[User:BigShotFancyMan|''BigShotFancyMan'']] 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Maybe? <br />
{{quote<br />
|Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:<br />
<br />
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later<br />
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious}}<br />
::I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
:::Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Quality Articles ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add <nowiki>{{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}}</nowiki> on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at [[D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
::They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Let's talk about Backgrounds ==<br />
<br />
If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: [[Talk:Background_Design_(5e_Guideline)#Background_Features_with_Mechanical_Benefits|Background Features with Mechanical Benefits]]. Thanks. {{User:ConcealedLight/Signature}} 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Musicus Meter ==<br />
<br />
So, I have a few questions.<br />
*How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?<br />
*What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?<br />
*Who judges it?<br />
I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day! <br />
<br />
Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --[[User:Flamestarter|Flamestarter]] ([[User talk:Flamestarter|talk]]) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Later yo ==<br />
<br />
Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] ([[User Talk:SgtLion|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Policy Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.<br />
<br />
As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.<br />
<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit<br />
<br />
I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)<br />
::I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it ''does'' get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page. <br />
:::Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse. <br />
:::Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule. <br />
:::I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.<br />
<br />
::::In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.<br />
<br />
::::Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole [[Chaos Knight (5e Class)]]/[[Demonic Knight (5e Class)]] problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.<br />
<br />
::::I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::"''I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard''." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress. <br />
:::::It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) [[User:Red Leg Leo|Red Leg Leo]] ([[User talk:Red Leg Leo|talk]]) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Chronomancy in d and d ==<br />
<br />
Hi all, <br />
I was wondering if it would at all be possible to introduce the school chronomancy to the wiki. More specifically, in 3.5E Epic spells. My reasonings behind this request are that in my time of playing d and d 3,5, I have constructed many epic spells related to the art of chronomancy. I think that this addition would encourage more creativity when it comes to the select few whom still make epic spells. plus, it would allow us to organise spells related to the manipulation of time into a more well suited category of its own. We would of course list the school as homebrew. please tell me your thoughts below. Thank you for taking the time to read this. <br />
Kind regards, <br />
Mcboris Da mad lad<br />
<br />
P.S<br />
If my proposal is blasphemy, I'll instead shove all of my spells in conjuration.<br />
<br />
:This might’ve fitted better for [[Talk:5e Homebrew]]. Anyways, I think it’s probably just easier to put them all in transmutation, what {{5e|time stop}} is in already. It’s not an entirely new system, like the poultices, or an entirely different concept, for truenaming. Not really as much reason for it, y’know? --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::On second read it appears as if I’ve been struck by 5e Tunnel Vision. Regardless my point stands but I still feel stupid. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you for responding, everything shall go in transmutation. have a good day :)<br />
<br />
== Yanied ==<br />
<br />
Yanied pls tell me y u always insult other users on the wiki. I appreciate ur interest in fantasy just as I do, I appreciate all ur work, I like people of my kin (people who appreciate books, nerdy, and like Tolkien books) but can u just be a better person?</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanied&diff=1576756User talk:Yanied2022-03-03T04:11:47Z<p>Michaellai: /* You DELETED my favorite prestige class - FireBorn 3.5e! :( */</p>
<hr />
<div><s>''Wie gehts?''</s> Ahem, I mean, what's up? Thanks for dropping by.<br />
__TOC__<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 40)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Difficulty with the subclass I created with a player ==<br />
I'm struggling to keep a subclass I created a little over a year ago (Oath of rot) true to what it was, after me and the player I made it with went back for a rules question we found the class was completely changed and while some of the flavor writing was good, we had to revert it back to the original as it had nearly none of the original aspects left I did however keep the changes in a separate page called the oath of the decaying and referenced such in the talk page, I've come back this morning to find the changes to the page back to how they were before I reverted them with a protection on the page saying we should use the talk page to sort this out, but I already have used the talk page. i have a session coming up today and would hopefully like the page unprotected so I can revert the changes back to what they should be. --[[User:Varuun|Varuun]] 12 September 2021<br />
:It seems to have been resolved and the page is unlocked so cheers.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 13:39, 12 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Question on how to proceed ==<br />
I noticed that you left comments about the state of [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ozvaldo_von_Hrafnavines_(5e_Creature) Oz] and while the wording of the features can easily be fixed I was wondering if it would be best to explain how the companion works and have the various features stay within the [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Electro_Vision_User_(5e_Class)#The_Outworld_Traveler class]. If it's fine to have a separate creature page in this mannor, then aside from wording, how would I fix some of the link formating and properly explaining of how it would work in terms of 5e mechanics? -- [[User:ThighRash|ThighRash]] ([[User talk:ThighRash|talk]])<br />
:If you want, I can have the stuff moved over to the proper class page. It might be more appropriate to call it the raven familiar there.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 07:23, 3 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Shinigami, Variant ==<br />
We,my friends and I, have finished the Shinigami, Variant(5e class). We would love if it could be moved up to the finished classes based on existing fiction section now. Also, the other Shinigami(5e class) is marked for deletion because of being abandoned, but was unsure if we could get back to just being called Shinigami since that one was abandoned. -- [[User:Wes1996|Wes1996]] ([[User talk:Wes1996|talk]]) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (EST)<br />
:Edit: Just noticed that by taking the tag away for it being completed, it puts it up in the chart. I didn't know that happened. I am sorry if you were meant to do that and I did it. -- Wes1996<br />
:No, you are free to take the tag off once you feel the class is finished. As for the existing one, once it is deleted, we can probably move yours from variant to the regular page. Thanks.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 09:25, 2 October 2020 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Invitation to Participate in Rlyeh Development ==<br />
<br />
I'm interested in starting an environment or campaign development of "Sunken Rlyeh.” I’m contacting you because you have in the past created Lovecraft/Cthulhu-related material, or otherwise indicated some interest in the topic; so I’m hopeful that you would be interested in supporting and participating in this development effort.<br />
<br />
I have developed some ideas about the nature of this underwater city, its inhabitants, and some special rules pertaining to interactions and the city's non-Euclidean geometry. I've also made some encounter tables and a table of city locations/structures. The concept is that below the surface of a prime material ocean, at the point farthest from any surface landmass, is a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water. On the other side of the gate is the city of Rlyeh, which sank and reformed itself as an underwater sphere. The sunken city is dark and sinister and slimy, and filled with many horrific denizens (but appropriate for the level of the adventuring party).<br />
<br />
The encounter tables include one for the prime material ocean surface, a deep water table appropriate for either side of the gate area, and one for the city itself. The encounters include creatures from standard 5e material, as well as many D&D Wiki creatures.<br />
<br />
I think that the effort could be successful even if contributions from multiple authors are contradictory, because… well, it’s Rlyeh. My notion is that there would be sub-categories like creatures/inhabitants, movement and vision/visability rules, geography (structures, distances, etc), encounters, traps, and the like. Any author could place relevant material in an existing category, or create a new one. I’m hopeful that any material deposited could be used with slight or no modification. Conflicting rules or other info could be optional and at the DM’s discretion, or only applicable in certain locations in the city, or whatever.<br />
<br />
Please reply if you are interested in participating in this activity.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 20:18, 8 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:Haha, another Lovecraft lover eh? Sure, I'd be happy to collaborate. But I would be most grateful if we fixed "non euclidean" since mathematics was not Lovecrafts strong point. Non-euclidean is just 3D life, which is what we live in. What is truly weird and horrifying is a Euclidean world where it is all flat!<br />
:Back to the idea, campaign settings are incredibly tough to do and usually encompass entire countries rather than a city. It is still possible, just on a smaller scale. I would be happy to help but I won't be able to get the ball rolling since I am working on other projects at the moment. I can contribute in bits and pieces. Hit me up when you start!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I have created "Sunken Rlyeh (5e Environment)" and entered what I have so far, except for the four tables. I would appreciate if you take a look and make whatever contributions you have time to make... I would also appreciate if you can point me in the right direction on getting Excel tables into the right format for the wiki... I'm going to stick with the "non-Euclidean" part of the description, since that is the way Mr. Lovecraft described it. I'll await his return and ask for clarification. Or if you can come up with something that better describes it, have at it! BTW, "Flatland" was a weird place, very repressive... --[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:::Haha, fair. Ah excel tables? I can make the usual tables, which could function about the same. I'll take a look!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 23:05, 10 November 2020 (MST)<br />
:::Thanks for the table entries; I was able to see how to reformat my Excel "locations" table and get it entered. It was a pain but I figured out how to do it somewhat universally and then save the excel as a MSDOS text file with space delimiting. Then it was a matter of correcting my many syntax errors... Next question: I would like to enter the encounter tables in separate areas (or maybe all three in one area) and link to them from the Sunken Rlyeh environment page. Each encounter table has another table with encounter descriptions and I'm thinking it would start to get cumbersome to have everything at the same level. Where/how might I store a table or tables so I can link them? Thanks again...--[[User:Dain|Dain]] ([[User talk:Dain|talk]]) 16:13, 11 November 2020 (MST)<br />
::::I'll make a supplement page for that then.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 17:18, 11 November 2020 (MST)<br />
==Insectaur==<br />
--[[User:DontAllowMe|DontAllowMe]] ([User talk:DontAllowMe|talk]]) 3:12, December 3 2020<br />
: Hey, why'd you get rid of the changes I did to Insectaur? I actually spent time on those.<br />
::Your changes unbalanced the race. Adding so much ASI and extra abilities like superior darkvision, extra speed, and flying speed is extremely overpowering, especially since it counts by unconventional minutes and scales over the typical levels.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Upsetting Article ==<br />
<br />
Hello Yanied,<br />
<br />
I am writing you concerning the following article: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lizardfolk_Biology_(Paludia_Supplement)<br />
<br />
It was brought to my attention after one of my fellow players was looking for information regarding her race in DnD, she had stumbled onto this article believing it to be the official class. We’ve all made this mistake at least once, we’re not concerned with her not recognizing this wiki’s purpose. Instead we (her entire DnD group) were appalled with the content of this page. This race is written with an inherent sexist bias that is unrealistic and harmful. It isn’t super clear on your Warning Policy page if this sort of speech is accepted. <br />
<br />
Here are a few of the upsetting ideals written into this race:<br />
<br />
“Hence, '''the lizardfolk have inferior endurance, especially the females,''' who have even more serious problems metabolizing lactic acid. In a long fight, a lizardfolk will tire faster than a human and will probably retreat if the fight isn't won in a couple of minutes.”<br />
<br />
“An average male requires an average of 8 hours of sleep, while a female requires an average of 10 hours of sleep, '''although many females prefer to sleep for 12 hours'''.”<br />
<br />
"Without exception, within the same species, male lizardfolk are larger, heavier, stronger, faster, more durable, more resistant to pain, fatigue and sickness, and less easily tired than female lizardfolk. Additionally, male lizardfolk have higher average intelligence and are wiser than female lizardfolk. This is due to the need for the males to do the hunting and fighting for the tribe. Additionally, male lizardfolk naturally live longer than females, but the habits of war and violence tend to equalize their lifespans with the females. '''In no case does a female lizardfolk ever control a tribe, clan, or village; the purpose of the female lizardfolk consorts is to make heirs, not to rule.''' If a chief were to die and a daughter or wife was his only relative, then the strongest males would fight to see which one of them was the strongest, and the winner would become the new chief.<br />
<br />
It should be obvious that male lizardfolk are excellent front line soldiers. With more strength and constitution than an average human, they ought to make great fighters. At home, they are excellent hunters and fishers, and can apply their hunting skills to aid whatever party of adventurers they may join. The males can also make skilled rangers.<br />
<br />
'''Female lizardfolk are often unable to take care of themselves''', as they aren't very good at competing with males for hunting or fishing grounds; the very few that have ever tried have been outclassed in every way. As a result, they have to find a mate or else depend on male relatives. In isolation, a female lizardfolk actually would be able to do some hunting or fishing, but even the least competition from a male will be enough to see her outdone. '''Female lizardfolk are more flexible than their male counterparts, but not nearly so much so that they would get any bonus to dexterity because of it.'''<br />
<br />
'''For game purposes, to get the stats of a female lizardfolk, first calculate the stats normally for the male, and then factor in the following:<br />
<br />
-4 strength, -4 constitution, -2 intelligence, -2 wisdom. Female lizardfolk also only have +2 natural armor instead of the male +5 natural armor (in common lizardfolk, but in no case do females have more than, or as much natural armor as the males, no matter the species.)''' Females can only hold their breath for only three times its constitution score before drowning (instead of 4X for the male.) '''Females by necessity, are supposed to lay eggs and raise children''', thus ensuring the continued survival of the race. Biologically, this necessitates certain physiological adjustments that may impede the females from combat, but in no way reduce their value to the race; in fact, t'''heir value actually increases in some ways because they can lay eggs.''' Lizardfolk females are acutely aware of this, and very few females will live their lives without reproducing.<br />
<br />
In comparison to a human, a typical female lizardfolk has -2 strength, constitution, wisdom, and -4 intelligence (minimum of 3). In an adventuring party, this can prove to be quite a problem. Being neither good at combat nor skilled in magic, '''the female lizardfolk would at first glance appear to be a liability for any party'''. However, this weakness can be turned into a strength... of a sort. Having little combat proficiency frees the female lizardfolk PCs from having to develop such skills, enabling them to class as bards and rogues and develop other skills. With little need to give them fighting skills, one can develop a female character's non-combat skills, and use them to the party's advantage. '''Female Paludian lizardfolk bards receive a +2 charisma bonus upon entering that class and lose it when leaving it.''' This reflects the exotic, eye-catching nature of the females; this is only able to be exploited by a class which requires the female to be looked at and paid attention to. For a female fighter or paladin, appearance and grace matter less, and the rest of the world knows it, '''so only the bard would logically receive a bonus for being eye-catching in a performance.<br />
'''<br />
Skills for the female lizardfolk that are worth focusing on include Balance, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Gather information, Move Silently,Open Lock, Perform, and Sleight of hand. Chances are, one can easily fit an exotic, alluring female lizardfolk into a party, especially if one's party needs someone agile and charismatic (while there is no particular bonus for dexterity, it ought to be focused on in order to make the PC worthwhile.) These can be good PCs because they can excel in certain niche roles that a party might need from time to time, such as having to send someone to balance on a narrow plank in order to get an item, or having to sneak through a dark room.<br />
<br />
'''During the prime mating season (spring, roughly 1/4 of the year), females receive a special +4 modifier to certain charisma checks to represent the release of pheromones and their greater desire to mate (though females always wish to mate more than the males do, but even more so during mating season), but it wears off after the season ends.''' In the wider world, female lizardfolk are considered to be rare, exotic and eye-catching, whereas the ferocious males simply intimidate and frighten others. Hence, the outside observer can see a dichotomy between the two roles of the lizardfolk sexes; male strength vs female exoticness.<br />
<br />
There is one native Paludian class which allows female lizardfolk to circumvent some of their disadvantages, that of the Hierodule, a divine casting class with no offensive capability. The education required for this class enables the females to avoid the -2 intelligence and -2 wisdom penalty, and this will apply only for the female if her first class is that of Heirodule. For no other class does the training for being a Heirodule apply, so if the female should switch classes, the penalties to intelligence and wisdom apply."<br />
<br />
“Like all other species of lizardfolk, the males are much heavier, larger, stronger, and more durable in every way than the females, who only weigh between 90-120 pounds (on average), are at least a foot shorter, are nowhere near as strong, and have softer skin, weaker bones, and less resistance to pain, fatigue, and injury. The females also have a lesser capacity for logic and reason, being creatures of hormones, feelings, and passions. The common lizardfolk are the most numerous type of in Paludia, forming a plurality of the entire lizardfolk population in Paludia.”<br />
<br />
I understand the desire to create races that mimic animals and cultures but no animal puts this strong of a disadvantage on all females. This article appears to be written with a ridiculous amount of harmful language and ideals towards females. It explicitly states that women of this race are useless for all things other than mating, it frequently uses the problematic work “exotic” and only gives women any use if they are used as a sex object as a bard and any advantage they get from that goes away if they leave the party. I’m not sure if the class started this way or was added later. Regardless, it seems inappropriate to have an article like this for a game that should be about inclusion and acceptance.<br />
<br />
I am posting this for all of the moderators so the article can be reviewed. I understand if this isn’t found to be against your community guidelines but please do consider the harm this type of article might impose on someone who might be quick to make parallels with human females or young females who might believe this about themselves.<br />
<br />
Thank you {{unsigned|ConcernedViewer}}<br />
<br />
:I've handled this. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 21:36, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
::Ah thanks, geo--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:55, 3 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Vikkalli ==<br />
Hello. Thank you very much for helping out with my [[Vikkalli (5e Race|Vikkalli]] race. I've been having a lot of stuff happening as Christmas comes to a head, so this is very much appreciated.--[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 17:49, 22 December 2020 (MST)<br />
:Ah, no problem! It was a good idea that wasn't the typical run of the mill race so I was glad to work on it!--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Bewilderbeast ==<br />
Hi. Since you have helped me out in the past, I was wondering if you could help me with CR and Hit Point calculations of my [[Bewilderbeast (5e Creature)|Bewilderbeast]] monster? --[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (MST)<br />
:Sure. I've fixed the hit dice to a d100 as per mythic rules and thus derived cr from the same rules. Hope this helps! It still needs all the proficiency bonuses and modifiers added for skills and damage averages for some.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Scarcaster ==<br />
Hi. I've been working on this class called a [[Scarcaster (5e Class)|Scarcaster]] and would like your help finishing it up, if that's alright. Specifically, I was wondering if you could help me with the Spirit of the Root and Spirit of the Elements subclasses and thus finishing up the class. For the Roots, I don't have a feature to gain from level 18 and I wanted to give it additional potions that it can brew (that's something scarcasters can do at level 9) and I have no ideas for what to do in that regard. For the Elemental Spirit, I wanted something comparable to the Gale Force Fist, in that it isn't a spell, but I don't want to make it like the Way of Four Elements Monk. Any suggestions and sorry to bother you. --[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (MST)<br />
:In lite of this question, I have since come up with things for the Elemental Spirit. I just need help with the Roots spirit now.--[[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 12:46, 17 March 2021 (MST)<br />
::I'll take a look -b --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 13:43, 17 March 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Problematic User ==<br />
<br />
Hey, Yanied. I hate being the bringer of bad news to the admins yet again, but a [https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Plywood_tank certain user] has violated the behavioral policy in multiple ways in [[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Naruto:_Shinobi_(5e_Class)&curid=131546&diff=1455977&oldid=1455967|this edit]], which I have presented on their [[User talk:Plywood tank|talk page]], and I would appreciate an admin's eyes (and potentially action) on the whole situation.--[[User:Ref3rence|Ref3rence]] ([[User talk:Ref3rence|talk]]) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I've given a warning on the subject for now. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:44, 1 April 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Drawings Requested ==<br />
<br />
I have noticed that you have provided drawings on some wiki pages you have edited. I would like to request some drawings for some of my own. Could you make drawings for all the creatures in the [[Flaming_Tundra_(5e_Environment)|Flaming Tundra]], an environment I created, except for the fire-bellied tortle hunter, trapper, and mage (make a single drawing for the subrace itself)? If not, do you have any suggestions of someone who can help me? Also, feel free to make any small edits you see necessary to improve the articles. Thank you for your time and consideration. - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Cool creations. I draw for commissions if they are more complex than a sketch. What kind of art do you have in mind? --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:22, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
A simple drawing of each creature, with no background. A sketch would sufice. - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Ok, sure. I'll be using the creature descriptions as my only guide. When I'm done, I'll post them up. Sound good?--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:28, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
Perfect! Thanks for the help! - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 12:38, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:All creatures and the subrace now have images.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
They're great! Thanks a million! - [[User:UnderKoopa757|UnderKoopa757]] ([[User talk:UnderKoopa757|talk]]) 22:40, 22 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
:Glad you like 'em -b -[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:07, 23 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Frost Bringer ==<br />
<br />
Hello Yanied. You put a temp lock on the Frost Bringer class today. I was the original creator of the class and had months ago finished it and put a request for no further edits to it. I just yesterday noticed that my class had been changed to a major degree and I wanted to return it to how I left it. The people who changed it have undone all attempts to recover my original content and have refused to take their changes to a variant of the class. They are now saying that I must move my content to my user page and that I can’t publish it in the public section because it doesn’t match their standards for balanced. --[[User:Silverking|Silverking]] ([[User talk:Silverking|talk]]) 21:39, 25 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:*It's not like you can't "recover" your version, hell, it's [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Frost_Bringer_(5e_Class)&oldid=1475920 right here]. <br />
:*If we made a variant to fix the page, we'd have a functional version and a non-functional version(by your own admittance), so that doesn't really work out. <br />
:*I can understand precedent and original intent, but functionality still comes first, and as I understand, the class still mostly works the same, barring a few instant death things.<br />
:It's a shame we're coming here now. I thought this could be handled with civility. That offer for help with userpages is still there, though. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
::Hello SilverKing. Yes, I locked the page temporarily due to the edit war brewing. While balance is a thing of ambiguity, the wiki does try to feature balanced content that users can enjoy without worry of breaking the game, hence the function of templates and community constructive criticism. If the content is compared to first-party content, there can be high-quality critiques made with valid points. User pages, on the other hand, are for personal usage and not subject to public scrutiny. Therefore if you make imbalanced content and wish to keep it so, it is recommended they be user pages. Otherwise, they are subject to rigorous scrutiny.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 10:01, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
::If the removal of content and replacement of completely different content is what is considered as balancing on this site I no longer feel comfortable putting any of my content on this site<br />
::I still feel that my original class was perfectly playable as most of its abilities could be replicated in some capacity within first party content.<br />
::If their goal was really to balance my content there are many different ways that could have been achieved instead the first thing that was said to me by them was that I no longer had any right to the work. They also made it clear that any changes I made would be immediately undone. They did not go into the class and mark what they felt was unbalance they just flat out undid my work. <br />
::I understand that it is this site's goal to present the best content it can but I also understand that ultimately it the Dungeon Master at every table that will decide how a home brewed class is played at their table. If my content is seen as unbalanced by them then they will change it for their game. If other people want to add optional changes to my content on its page then I welcome it as long as they don't go removing mine just because they don't like it.--[[User:Silverking|Silverking]] ([[User talk:Silverking|talk]]) 10:55, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not entirely sure about the balance, as that would be up for discussion on the class talk page. As for editing, while it generally is better etiquette to leave a note about changes to be made, we also encourage a "be bold" editing policy. We also try to present more balanced material on the public front even if it can be playtested further because, otherwise, you're putting out products and expecting the players to do all the work themselves. There are standards of objective balance in the game, and users are encouraged to look at those when making content comparable to first-party.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:13, 26 May 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hetzi Dracon Flavor Help ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 5e race called Hetzi Dracon, and I could use help with the flavor of it, can you help? Thank you in advance! --[[User:Bowler1234|Bowler1234]] ([[User talk:Bowler1234|talk]]) 11:13, 23 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I'll give it a look over sure.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:30, 23 September 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hawkone5 Nonsense ==<br />
<br />
Seriously, Hawkone5 absolutely didn't come from me, and whoever did that whole nonsense on ''my'' talk page is probably just messing around trying too make me look like an immature prankster. I have never made a username other than Enduringone5.<br />
<br />
Believe me on this, please. Best of luck.<br />
<br />
[[User:Enduringone5|Enduringone5]] ([[User talk:Enduringone5|talk]]) 00:11, 21 October 2021 (MDT)Enduringone5<br />
:It definitely came from your account, if not to your knowledge. I suggest you see if you had any more edits made that you were not aware of, but they are definitely logged as your actions.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:03, 21 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
<br />
Can you help me to find pictures I can put on my stats. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]])<br />
:Sure. Which pages need pictures?--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:06, 21 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture use ==<br />
<br />
The [[Spawn Of Gia (5e Creature)|Spawn Of Gia]], it says the picture I put on it can't be used. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]]) 18:29, 22 October 2021<br />
:The uploaded picture is unattributed. Do you have the source by any chance? Unless you own the image. --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 17:54, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I got the image online. --[[User:Javan9|Javan9]] ([[User talk:Javan9|talk]]) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:You should find the source or find a picture with a source instead to replace it. When you do, you can tell me or I can help you find an alternative. - - [[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:37, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
::I have replaced it with a sourced image.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:55, 22 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding Changes on Blessed Narehate (5e_race) ==<br />
<br />
I have noticed the changes you made to certain abilites and to the page itself. Although, the reason why it had immunity to curses was because me and my friend realised there aren't many curses that use saving throws. I envy the other changes you made, especially because I am new to making content, but I would kindly ask you to reconsider the change you made against the immunity. If you were to still think it's ballanced with the edits you set out, I would like you to explain why would immunity to curses would be too unballanced.--[[User:AverageHuntress|AverageHuntress]] ([[User talk:AverageHuntress|talk]]) 22:09, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:That's true that curses aren't much or well-used in dnd. I suppose it is a fair point since resistance to a common damage type would actually be more advantageous in that case.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mr. Vandal in Secret ==<br />
<br />
Yanied, I have just uncovered an attacker who needs blocked immediately: Stareater666. Their [[Filthy Goblin Pest (5e Creature)]] page is a vandal page. I doubt its a coincidence that the goblin's tag was "nimda" whcich is admin spelled backward. Also, from reading the description and all that, I could see it was designed to criticize wiki admins and make them look like careless and hateful idiots who block users for no reason. Lastly, that "chant" in the description had a "3" next to it, and as it turns out, if you skip every 3 letters in that chant nonsense you get the letters to spell "i hate nuke the earth it is filthy jerk". I doubt that was an accident. Stareater is probably another 666 vandal or sockpuppet of AcidRat12345. Hopefully you find this helpful. --[[User:MythicActions2000|MythicActions2000]] ([[User talk:MythicActions2000|talk]]) 23:18, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
:I've handled this already. {{User:Geodude671/Signature}} . . 23:34, 23 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
::Interesting.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 00:23, 24 October 2021 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Creatures taken off the main searches ==<br />
<br />
Is it necessary for [[Shayde the Devastator (5e Creature)|these]] [[Firewave (5e Creature)|here]] [[Azathoth (5e Creature)|four]] [[Ancient Devourer (5e Creature)|creatures]] to have <nowiki>|nocategory</nowiki> on them, just wondering? I noticed that someone undid that. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:Yes, that nocategory parameter is what tells people the pages are specially made for supplements only, as it prevents them from appearing on the main search.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
::I will talk to them abou this--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:26, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Ok. I do also agree with you. And that user says that even super overpowered/mythic stuff should have categories. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:28, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:::I think they might have forgotten a previous conversation we had about it.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:30, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Got that. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Yep, I wasn't aware/forgot that a conversation was had over them, but the mythic monsters had categories so I assumed those creatures should have categories too. Feel free to undo my edit.--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 14:33, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:::::Cool, gotcha.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 14:34, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
Thank you for handling it. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 14:35, 26 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Unacceptable Page ==<br />
Hey, Yanied, can you delete [[Ogre Shit|this page]]? See the page for why. --[[User:Gdd4270|Gdd4270]] ([[User talk:Gdd4270|talk]]) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (MST)<br />
:Cool, someone else took care of it - b - - [[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 10:57, 28 November 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==You ruined my Race!==<br />
I created my race, the Medrosakal, back in 2nd Edition. I nerfed it WAY down so Admin would accept it. When they finally did, it was perfect, and then YOU came in and made it COMPLETELY UNRECOGNIZABLE! Now they Admin locked it so I can’t correct MY OWN RACE and I have to fight just to get it back to normal! DON’T TOUCH MY STUFF AGAIN!!! --[[User:DarkSyde1369|DarkSyde1369]] ([[User talk:DarkSyde1369|talk]]) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:Keep it civil, darksyde. Allow me to refer you to the wiki's [[Help:Behavioral Policy|Behavioral Policy]]. I would also note that the page was created by an unidentified IP address, and that said IP address has no link to your account - therefore, we would have to take your word for it, which is rather difficult to do without proof. --[[User:Nuke The Earth|Nuke The Earth]] ([[User talk:Nuke The Earth|talk]]) 17:31, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
::Moved to the [[Talk:Medrosakal (5e Race)|talk page]] for reference.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 19:21, 20 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Thanks for the assist==<br />
<br />
You've helped format a lot of my stuff lately, just wanted to say thanks for that. Still learning how to do stuff, but at least soon enough I'll be able to build on my own keyboard. At least they won't be piling up on anybody's list of "things to go through and delete" or whatever. [[User:Glass|Glass]] ([[User talk:Glass|talk]]) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:No problem. It's mostly practice in the end.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 12:37, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Christmas==<br />
<br />
I already have the reindeer and the elves (mine are Tinker Gnomes). Also, I have MOST of the monsters (mostly animated broken toys and ice golems). The biggest problem is that I don't have an idea for the big villain. I can't picture who would hate Christmas ( or at least Santa) enough to disrupt Christmas. [[User:Redrum|Redrum]] ([[User talk:Redrum|talk]]) 17:17, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
:Theoretically, you could re-skin a {{5e|pit fiend}} to be something like Krampus. Or re-skin Bel, former lord of Avernus, if you want something stronger.--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 21:25, 22 December 2021 (MST)<br />
::I'll try that!!! [[User:Redrum|Redrum]] ([[User talk:Redrum|talk]]) 16:42, 29 December 2021 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer Template==<br />
Yanied, what is the formula or code or whatever it is for the design disclaimer? I need the template for it just in case I have another race that needs it.--[[User:DarkSyde1369|DarkSyde1369]] ([[User talk:DarkSyde1369|talk]]) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:<nowiki>{{Design Disclaimer|<!--edition-->|<!--reason-->}}</nowiki>--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 20:48, 14 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
== You DELETED my favorite prestige class - FireBorn 3.5e! :( ==<br />
Yaneid, WHY did you just now delete this PRESTIGE class? I need at least a backup copy of it if you are going to purge it forever -- is it gone forever? You just deleted it and it was one of my most favorite classes and 1 of my games needs it! :( <br />
[[User:ProphetPX|-- ProphetPX]] ([[User talk:ProphetPX|talk]]) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:You do realize it was not deleted per se(but it could, judging from abandoned tag and all), just moved and reworked to 5e? Right here: [[Fire Born (5e Subclass)|HERE]]. You can find it's old description in history tab. Also, I'm pretty sure nothing on this wiki is permanently lost, even if deleted. And all of this was written on the page of this prestige class too :/ --[[User:Cezaryx|Cezaryx]] ([[User talk:Cezaryx|talk]]) 06:34, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
::If you've got interest in finishing the original, it can be restored if you wish. Otherwise, the history tab works fine. --[[User:SwankyPants|SwankyPants]] ([[User talk:SwankyPants|talk]]) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
:::The original thing had empty fluff sections in the adaptation bit that were left unfixed. I have posted a link to an archived copy of it to your [[User talk:ProphetPX|talk page]].--[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 11:00, 28 January 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
Hi I am Michaellai and I wanted to say that Yanied was not nice to me as a beginner in dnd wiki<br />
I wanted to team up with u<br />
<br />
==Propability is a thing in Dungeons and Dragons==<br />
Hey, so I went into all races, picked three at random, to check if anything is out of place, balancing is well and good, it's not left unfinished, all that jazz. 3 races at random from the list of all races. All three of them had an art included made by you. Really, what were the odds? --[[User:Cezaryx|Cezaryx]] ([[User talk:Cezaryx|talk]]) 07:44, 3 February 2022 (MST)<br />
:Amazing. I don't even remember making that many... --[[User:Yanied|Yanied]] ([[User talk:Yanied|talk]]) 18:17, 3 February 2022 (MST)</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaellai&diff=1576741User talk:Michaellai2022-03-03T04:02:23Z<p>Michaellai: /* Please stop making Nymph Templates */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Welcome to D&D Wiki! == <br />
<br />
;Welcome!<br />
Hello Michaellai, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your [[Special:Preferences|user preferences]] match your preferences.<br />
;Questions:<br />
If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's [[Help:Talk Pages|talk page]]. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on [[DnD Discussion]]s. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked [[User talk:Admin|here]]. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.<br />
;Formatting<br />
Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Help:Editing] on Wikipedia (or even their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Introduction] page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. [[Help:Portal]] also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.<br />
;Community<br />
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of [[Help:Behavioral Policy|policies]] are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette etiquette] when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|removal process]]. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon ([[Image:Signature_icon.png]]). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --[[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (MST)<br />
<br />
It’s not me dude I was just a beginner here.</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Sireine_(3.5e_Template)&diff=1576544Sireine (3.5e Template)2022-03-02T05:44:02Z<p>Michaellai: /* Abilities: */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Siren Template=<br />
<br />
{{ImageNeeded}}<br />
<br />
[[3e Summary::Siren are amphibious creatures that are both quick, and charming.]]<br />
<br />
“Siren” is an inherited template that can be added to any corporal fey, giant, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, outsider, or “Humanoid aberration,” hereafter referred to as the Base Creature.<br />
<br />
A Siren creature uses all the base creature’s stats except as noted here. Do not recalculate the creature’s Hit Dice, BaB, saves, or skill points of its type changes.<br />
<br />
===Size and type:=== <br />
The base creature’s type does not change unless it is lower on the pyramid (see page 142 of the Savage Species handbook) than the fey type, in which case it does. (Note: the SS Pyramid might be later placed on here for easier access)<br />
<br />
The base creature always gains the aquatic subtype, unless it already has it.<br />
<br />
The creature’s size is unchanged.<br />
<br />
===Speed:=== <br />
A Siren creature gains a 60 ft swim speed<br />
<br />
===Armor Class:=== <br />
The base creature gains a deflection bonus from it’s deflection Aura (Su) equal to its Charisma mod.<br />
<br />
===Special Attacks:=== <br />
A Siren Creature retains all of its special attacks for the base creature, and also gains the following special Attacks:<br />
<br />
'''''Charming Song (Sp)'''''<BR><br />
At will, a Siren can sing a song that functions as a Charm Person spell for every creature that hears it(Caster Level = ½ HD) the save DC is the creature’s charisma score . However, the time that the charm person spell works for is increased by 1, thus doubling the amount of time the spell lasts for (a Sirine with 1 HD has the effects on other people for 2 hours , a 2HD Sirine has it for 4, and so on.). If a person has succeeded in resisting any Sirine's song, he is immune to it for 24 hours. The Sirine has to make a Perform (Singing) Check against the targets' opposed will save to succeed.<br />
<br />
'''Intelligence Damage (Su):'''<BR><br />
Any creature hit by a Siren's touch attack must make a fortitude save (10 + ½ HD + Cha mod); if they fail this, they take 1d4 intelligence damage (or 2d4 on a critical).<br />
<br />
'''Soothing Touch (Su):'''<BR><br />
A Siren, if it desires, can use its touch to restore 1d6 points of intelligence damage caused by any Fey or Sirine.<br />
<br />
===Special Qualities:=== <br />
A Siren retains all of the base creatures special Qualities, and gains the abilities described below.<br />
<br />
'''Aquatic Subtype:''' <BR><br />
A Siren is considered an aquatic creature, but can breathe air as well as she can with oxygen, as the Amphibious ability. Sirines do not have to make swim checks to move in water because of their swim speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Amphibious (Ex):''' <BR><br />
Although Siren are aquatic, they can survive indefinitely on land.<br />
<br />
'''Deflection (Su):''' <BR><br />
A Siren is surrounded by an aura that grants it a deflection bonus to AC equal to its Charisma bonus.<br />
<br />
===Abilities:=== <br />
Increase from the base creature as follows; Dex + 2, Int. +1, Wis +1, and Cha +6.<br />
<br />
===Skills:=== <br />
Sirines receive a +2 Racial bonus to all perform <div style="display: none;">(and sexual Prowress)</div> checks. The racial bonus does not count as skill ranks for the purposes of gaining feats, but does count for the purposes of attaining class abilities.<br />
<br />
===Challenge Rating:===<br />
Same as the base creature +1<br />
<br />
===Level Adjustment:===<br />
Same as the base creature +1<br />
<br />
===Alignment:===<br />
Usually Chaotic (except evil).<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Creature Templates Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Creature]]<br />
[[Category:Template]]<br />
[[Category:Fey Type]]<br />
[[Category:Aquatic Subtype]]<br />
[[Category:LA1]]</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Sireine_(3.5e_Template)&diff=1576543Sireine (3.5e Template)2022-03-02T05:42:40Z<p>Michaellai: /* Special Attacks: */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Siren Template=<br />
<br />
{{ImageNeeded}}<br />
<br />
[[3e Summary::Siren are amphibious creatures that are both quick, and charming.]]<br />
<br />
“Siren” is an inherited template that can be added to any corporal fey, giant, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, outsider, or “Humanoid aberration,” hereafter referred to as the Base Creature.<br />
<br />
A Siren creature uses all the base creature’s stats except as noted here. Do not recalculate the creature’s Hit Dice, BaB, saves, or skill points of its type changes.<br />
<br />
===Size and type:=== <br />
The base creature’s type does not change unless it is lower on the pyramid (see page 142 of the Savage Species handbook) than the fey type, in which case it does. (Note: the SS Pyramid might be later placed on here for easier access)<br />
<br />
The base creature always gains the aquatic subtype, unless it already has it.<br />
<br />
The creature’s size is unchanged.<br />
<br />
===Speed:=== <br />
A Siren creature gains a 60 ft swim speed<br />
<br />
===Armor Class:=== <br />
The base creature gains a deflection bonus from it’s deflection Aura (Su) equal to its Charisma mod.<br />
<br />
===Special Attacks:=== <br />
A Siren Creature retains all of its special attacks for the base creature, and also gains the following special Attacks:<br />
<br />
'''''Charming Song (Sp)'''''<BR><br />
At will, a Siren can sing a song that functions as a Charm Person spell for every creature that hears it(Caster Level = ½ HD) the save DC is the creature’s charisma score . However, the time that the charm person spell works for is increased by 1, thus doubling the amount of time the spell lasts for (a Sirine with 1 HD has the effects on other people for 2 hours , a 2HD Sirine has it for 4, and so on.). If a person has succeeded in resisting any Sirine's song, he is immune to it for 24 hours. The Sirine has to make a Perform (Singing) Check against the targets' opposed will save to succeed.<br />
<br />
'''Intelligence Damage (Su):'''<BR><br />
Any creature hit by a Siren's touch attack must make a fortitude save (10 + ½ HD + Cha mod); if they fail this, they take 1d4 intelligence damage (or 2d4 on a critical).<br />
<br />
'''Soothing Touch (Su):'''<BR><br />
A Siren, if it desires, can use its touch to restore 1d6 points of intelligence damage caused by any Fey or Sirine.<br />
<br />
===Special Qualities:=== <br />
A Siren retains all of the base creatures special Qualities, and gains the abilities described below.<br />
<br />
'''Aquatic Subtype:''' <BR><br />
A Siren is considered an aquatic creature, but can breathe air as well as she can with oxygen, as the Amphibious ability. Sirines do not have to make swim checks to move in water because of their swim speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Amphibious (Ex):''' <BR><br />
Although Siren are aquatic, they can survive indefinitely on land.<br />
<br />
'''Deflection (Su):''' <BR><br />
A Siren is surrounded by an aura that grants it a deflection bonus to AC equal to its Charisma bonus.<br />
<br />
===Abilities:=== <br />
Increase from the base creature as follows; Dex + 2, Int. +1, Wis +1, and Cha +2.<br />
<br />
===Skills:=== <br />
Sirines receive a +2 Racial bonus to all perform <div style="display: none;">(and sexual Prowress)</div> checks. The racial bonus does not count as skill ranks for the purposes of gaining feats, but does count for the purposes of attaining class abilities.<br />
<br />
===Challenge Rating:===<br />
Same as the base creature +1<br />
<br />
===Level Adjustment:===<br />
Same as the base creature +1<br />
<br />
===Alignment:===<br />
Usually Chaotic (except evil).<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Creature Templates Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Creature]]<br />
[[Category:Template]]<br />
[[Category:Fey Type]]<br />
[[Category:Aquatic Subtype]]<br />
[[Category:LA1]]</div>Michaellaihttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Vampire,_Unkilled_(3.5e_Template)&diff=1569373Vampire, Unkilled (3.5e Template)2022-02-14T04:28:45Z<p>Michaellai: /* Arcana Vampires */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Unkilled Vampire/Arcana vampire ==<br />
<br />
[[3.5e Summary::LA 0 vampire template. These vampires do not get many undead bonuses and are still mostly mortal. Designed for player characters or low-level enemies.]]<br />
<br />
Unkilled vampires are a unique kind of vampire. They lack some of the limitations of the ancient, powerful vampire lords, but also lack many of those abilities and powers. Unkilled vampires appear just as they did before being turned, except that they have glowing red eyes and speak any languages they previously knew.<br />
<br />
Either from resoluteness of body, purity of spirit, or some kind of fluke, an individual did not die during their vampiric turning process. As such, they did not lose their sense of self and their soul did not leave their body. Because of this, they still cast a shadow and a reflection. They are essentially the same person as they were before being turned, but their body has new limitations and abilities; most imperatively, a need to consume blood. For those who did not want it, the transformation is traumatic and damaging.<br />
<br />
=== Creating an Unkilled Vampire ===<br />
<br />
“Unkilled vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature).<br />
<br />
'''Size and Type:''' The unkilled vampire is considered [[undead]] for the purposes of spells designed to affect undead (such as [[turn undead]]), but it does not recalculate any of its features as an undead normally would. They retain their [[Constitution]] score. The only undead features they gain are as follows:<br />
<br />
* +4 charisma +4 intelligence<br />
<br />
* [[Darkvision]] out to 60 feet.<br />
<br />
* Immunity to [[poison]], sleep effects, and [[disease]].<br />
<br />
* Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect unkilled vampires. These spells turn the unkilled vampire back into the base creature they were before being turned.<br />
<br />
'''[[Hit Dice]]:''' Same as the base creature.<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Speed (Creature Statistic)|Speed]]:''' Same as the base creature.<br />
<br />
'''[[Armor Class]]:''' Same as the base creature.<br />
<br />
'''Attack:''' An unkilled vampire retains all the attacks of the base creature. If the base creature can use weapons, the unkilled vampire retains this ability.<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Special Attacks and Special Qualities (Creature Statistic)|Special Attacks]]:''' An unkilled vampire retains all the special attacks of the base creature and gains those described below.<br />
<br />
'''''Bite:''''' The unkilled vampire grows a pair of fangs upon turning, and gains a natural bite attack. If the base creature has a beak instead of teeth, the unkilled vampire's beak sharpens to a deadly point and grows serrated edges.<br />
<br />
'''''Improved Grab ([[Ex]]):''''' To use this ability, the unkilled vampire must hit with their bite attack. They can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''''Blood Drain ([[Ex]]):''''' An unkilled vampire can suck blood from a living victim with their fangs by making a successful grapple check. If they pin the foe, they can drain blood, dealing 1d6 points of lethal damage each round the pin is maintained. On each successful attack, the unkilled vampire gains a number of temporary hit points according to the chart below.<br />
<br />
{|class="{{d20}}" <br />
|- <br />
! rowspan="1" | Character level<br />
! rowspan="1" | Temporary HP <br />
<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|1-3|| 1<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|4-6|| 2<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|7-9|| 3<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|10-12|| 4<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|13-15|| 5<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|16-18|| 6<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|19-20|| 7<br />
<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|21+|| 10<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Special Attacks and Special Qualities (Creature Statistic)|Special Qualities]]:''' An unkilled vampire retains all the special qualities of the base creature and gains those described below.<br />
<br />
''Resistances ([[Ex]]):'' An unkilled vampire has resistance to cold 5 and electricity 5.<br />
<br />
''Turn Resistance ([[Ex]]):'' An unkilled vampire has +2 turn resistance.<br />
<br />
''Hematophagy ([[Ex]]):'' Unkilled vampires must drink blood to remain alive, just as a living creature must eat food. However, if desperate, unkilled vampires can temporarily sustain their selves on vegetable or fruit juice, water, and mundane food. If the unkilled vampire sustains their self in this way but goes without drinking blood for two days, they are fatigued, after four days, exhausted, and after six days, begin to [[SRD:Environment#Starvation and Thirst|starve]].<br />
<br />
''Vampiric Vigilance:'' If the base creature needs to sleep (or meditate, as an elf), the unkilled vampire needs to do the same and is susceptible to [[fatigue]] and [[exhaustion]]. However, an unkilled vampire cannot pass out from exhaustion. Instead, they simply remain exhausted until they decide to sleep.<br />
<br />
''Slow Heart:'' Unkilled vampires only need to inhale breath once every 30 minutes under relaxed or low-intensity conditions. In high-stress conditions (such as running or in combat) they need to breathe once every 15 minutes. Their heart beats infrequently and their skin is cold.<br />
<br />
'''[[Skills]]:''' Unkilled vampires have a +2 racial bonus [[SRD:Move Silently Skill|Move Silently]] <br />
checks. Otherwise same as the base creature.<br />
<br />
'''Environment:''' Any, usually same as base creature.<br />
<br />
'''[[Alignment]]:''' Any, though most are evil or assumed evil by the general populace.<br />
<br />
'''Level Adjustment:''' +0<br />
<br />
=== Unkilled Vampire Weaknesses ===<br />
<br />
When an unkilled vampire reaches -10 hit points, their body dissolves into ash.<br />
<br />
'''Repelling an Unkilled Vampire:''' Unkilled vampires recoil from a strongly presented holy symbol. A recoiling unkilled vampire must stay at least 5 feet away from a creature holding the holy symbol and cannot touch or make melee attacks against the creature holding the item for as long as he continues to present the holy symbol. Holding an unkilled vampire at bay takes a standard action.<br />
<br />
'''Sunlight Intolerance:''' Exposure to direct sunlight disorients an unkilled vampire. They can take only a single move action or attack action per round. If an unkilled vampire remains in direct sunlight for more than 1 hour, they must make a DC 15 [[Fortitude]] save or begin taking 1 fire damage every round. Abrupt exposure to sunlight (such as the daylight spell) blinds the unkilled vampire for 1 round. On subsequent rounds, they are dazzled as long as they remain in the affected area.<br />
<br />
'''Staking:''' Driving a wooden stake through an unkilled vampire's heart immediately drops them to 0 hit points. Vampire slayers often stake an unkilled vampire before decapitating or burning them.<br />
<br />
==Arcana Vampires==<br />
Arcana vampires are made by performing a ritual that worships a neutral or good aligned god to boost supreme arcane energy into an unkilled vampire. Since the curse of the unkilled vampire cannot be removed but <br />
A Arcana vampire retains all the special abilities/qualities/weaknesses/ability adjustments of the Unkilled vampire.<br />
<br />
Arcana vampire traits(these traits are in addition to unkilled vampire traits): <br />
<br />
*+2 charisma +2 intelligence -4 strength<br />
<br />
*Spell like-abilities:<br />
<br />
A thousand faces: Arcana vampires can change their appearance at will into anything.<br />
<br />
Hypnotic gaze *: The subject of this spell must succeed on a DC 16 + charisma modifier + int modifier<br />
or be dominated as dominate monster spell. An Arcana vampire can use this at will by staring at the subject’s face.<br />
<br />
Hypnotism aura *: all creatures around an Arcana vampire within 30 + cha modifier + int modifier feet that has 3d6+int modifier HD or lower must succeed on a DC 30 or be fascinated by the Arcana vampire(by will).<br />
<br />
Energy ray: an Arcana vampire can shoot a ray of electricity/acid/cold/fire from their eyes that deals 1d6+ Int modifier damage(by will)<br />
<br />
* this ability can only be used by characters that have a cha modifier of at least +7<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Creature Templates Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Template]]<br />
[[Category:Undead Subtype]]<br />
[[Category:LA0]]<br />
Edited by Michaellai user(I created/added arcana vampire) and Fuffydud user(creator of unkilled vampire)</div>Michaellai