Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

From D&D Wiki

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

Archive 1 |

Combining Categories[edit]

So, I was looking at all of the categories on many of the pages (especially the SRD ones), and was thinking... there's got to be a better way. Especially if the categories are just ignored in favor of manually typed and maintained lists. Does a particular article need to appear on every single category page from the highest level of the hierarchy on down? And with all the types in D&D, what if I want to see a list of just Humanoids which are Aquatic? Basically, the ability to combine categories to show only specific results. Or, even better, the ability to produce inline category article lists.

If any of the site owners want to take a look at and discuss if you think installing this extension would be as helpful as I do ;) --Oneiros 14:51, 20 July 2006 (MDT)


DynamicPageList has been installed for a very long time. I believe that it is good to have each item listed in several categories, from the top down. What you are talking about already exists with this current system. You would just have to go to Category:Humanoids, Aquatic or similar. I am not the owner of this site, but I believe that I am speaking for him as well. – I do not think, however, that I fully understand what you are talking about. If you want, try to explain what you are talking about to me so it is a little bit more clear. --Blue Dragon 17:06, 20 July 2006 (MDT)

(Goes to Sandbox) Ah, I see DynamicPageList is indeed installed. I was using the DynamicPageList2 syntax ("DLP" vs. "DynamicPageList" for the tag.) I see that version 2 allows alphabetical sorting, however. Might be more useful than the current version for a site like this?
Anyway, using the Emperor Sea Strider Nymph (3.5e Creature) as an example, instead of having something like:
  • Categories: Dungeons and Dragons | DnD Monsters | DnD Creatures, Aberration | DnD User Creatures, Aberration | DnD Creatures, Small | DnD User Creatures, Small
it might be easier to have the categories like so:
  • Categories: DnD | User | Creatures | Aberration | Small - and, since it's on the CR1 list, a [CR1] category could be easily added.
Then, using DPL, all kinds of lists could be managed easier by simply selecting the appropriate combination of tags, without having to add items to lists manually. The creatures by CR are a perfect example of something that could be simplified this way. Adding tags themselves also becomes much simpler. I'm also thinking it might be easier to automagically add proper category tags via templates, which I'm just begininning to appreciate the versitility of. Also, by using the sandbox, users could create their own lists, if they wanted to see a combined list of DnD and Modern equipment, for example. (Oy, the equipment pages screams for this sort of simplified management.)
Anyway, sorry for rambling, I'm really still a bit of a noob at the whole Wiki thing, and I'm just spouting ideas as they come to me. --Oneiros 07:46, 21 July 2006 (MDT)
I understand what you are saying now about using DynamicPageList. We should just wait until next Thursday until Green Dragon gets back, and he can make the authoritative decision. What you are saying makes sense, and it could clear things up quite a bit. However, the final decision should rest on GD. (It is fine to set up an example, however. You can do it on Emperor Sea Strider Nymph (3.5e Creature)). --Blue Dragon 11:13, 21 July 2006 (MDT)


I went ahead and used Sledged's Ogrillon, since it also includes a subtype. The category list for this creature is currently:

Dungeons and Dragons | DnD Monsters | DnD Creatures, Giant | DnD User Creatures, Giant | DnD Creatures, Orc | DnD User Creatures, Orc | DnD Creatures, Medium | DnD User Creatures, Medium
where I see something more like the following (which has been added):
DnD | User | Creatures | Giant | Orc | Medium
Then, the following DPL code was used:
to generate a list of all User-created creatures with the Giant Type within the DnD portion of the Wiki. That list currently includes:
It would take a bit of effort to modify existing categories for various pages, but hey, that's what Barnstars are for, right? ;) --Oneiros 12:49, 21 July 2006 (MDT)
Oneiros, what you are doing is great. I am giving you the official go-ahead. I talked to Green Dragon on the phone, and he agrees with me. Try to change sections all at one time (they can be small sections), but keep it organized so that we know what still needs to be changed. I will try to help, but I am currently caught up in something. When I get free time, I will help as well. Thank you! --Blue Dragon 13:51, 21 July 2006 (MDT)
Alrighty, then. I'm going to start back with Races, since I've gone through them before. I'm going to try and put together some sort of category hierarchy first and document it, so I can think this through and not just start updating willy-nilly.
Update All LA0 races have been modified using the simpler category list. I've started work on a Category List/Hierarchy to keep things organized. User races, for example, would have DnD > User > Race > Type > Subtype > LA > ECL. An optional level is Group to help organize things, too.--Oneiros 22:43, 23 July 2006 (MDT)
Wow. OK. That changes everything for me. I was just starting to redo SRD monsters, and this DLP thing really just ... JFC! that's a nice feature. I now need to stop, look, and learn. Once I understand it, I need to redo the monsters and bot the rest of the SRD. I can start with the SRD races to better understand the feature, then work outward. Thanks for pointing this out. You've made my job both harder/easier.

I ported over the SRD races to your format. I am a full believer in the use of the wiki features for automation and organizing, and this way, though it takes lots of reorganizing, provides far more payoff. --Dmilewski 10:10, 10 August 2006 (MDT)

D&D Wiki on a new server[edit]

Seeing that D&D Wiki has grown quite a bit from its original size, I have transferred it over to a slightly faster server. Things should now run a bit smoother, and if the growth continues, I will transfer it to a much better server. Sorry for the minor problems that have been occurring these last few days. --Blue Dragon 14:01, 24 July 2006 (MDT)

D&D Alliance forum[edit]

I'm in the process of making a forum to try to bring together the different D&D forums and guilds spread out through Cyber space. i'm using and was wondering if anyone wanted to help me??? thanks for reading. --DeadlyNightShade 18:26, 6 August 2006 (MDT)

Where is it located, I would like to look at it and maybe help. --Green Dragon 16:58, 19 August 2006 (MDT)
Well it kinda never really kicked off, but i'll post a link to it but i guess with some help i might be able to make it better, and people would join, then i'll have to go searching and find people from gaia and other forums --DeadlyNightShade 11:01, 24 September 2006 (MDT)
I can see what you mean by it never really started, only 2 replies. Oh well. Anyway, I will check it periodically. --Green Dragon 13:06, 24 September 2006 (MDT)
I have a forum on invisionfree, and I've created an account at the DanD one you created, so if you need any help with editing it, I'll always be there. Unless I die in a freak dice-rolling accident, of course. --Natan j 21:03, 10 October 2006 (MDT)

Anyone else having problems?[edit]

During the day, when I access this site from downtown Chicago, the pages load really slowly and come up without any CSS, making them very hard to read (which is why I haven't added alot recently.) When I get home at night, however, they come up fine. Is anyone else experiencing problems viewing the site? Is it a time of day thing or a location thing for me? This just started a little over a week ago. --Oneiros 07:44, 9 August 2006 (MDT)

Well i haven't had the CSS problem but the site has been rather slow. --DeadlyNightShade 14:37, 9 August 2006 (MDT)
I'll ask Blue Dragon. --Green Dragon 22:51, 16 August 2006 (MDT)
There have been several problems with the site (things do become messed up, even if an admin is not around) while I was gone. Most of these problems should be fixed by now, and if any are not, please let me know. Thanks, --Blue Dragon 10:06, 17 August 2006 (MDT)
You forgot about the other skins (chick, cologne blue, nostalgia, etc...). Since the "firewallonly" class is only in the monobook CSS, the firewall message shows up in all the other skins. —Sledged 13:24, 22 September 2006 (MDT)


It may have taken me eighteen days, but I finally got the initial version of the NPC stat block finished! Discuss... —Sledged 20:50, 20 August 2006 (MDT)


What do you think about the new logo for D&D Wiki? How could it be improved to make it better? --Green Dragon 16:51, 16 September 2006 (MDT)

I like this one less than the old one. Scrunched. Poor use of the corner space. It is horizontal in a vertical space (the sidebar). The white space above and below it de-emphasize the logo. The fonts disagree with each other. One is narrow and ornate while the other is wide and bold. --Dmilewski 17:36, 16 September 2006 (MDT)
I have to agree on the whole horizontal/vertical thing.
If it were slightly bigger, I wouldn't have a problem with the font differences. --Aramar the Black
I like it more than the old one, but both of these guys have a point. It's not the corner space thing that bugs me, it's the Fonts, and the Widescreen bars that do. Small logo, but something. --Pz.Az.04Maus 18:39, 16 September 2006 (MDT)
Dndw o.gif
If the word "Wiki" were spaced further down, that might help the "empty horizontal space" problem. But the D&D logo itself would still be a bit small. How about something like this:
--Oneiros 23:44, 16 September 2006 (MDT)
I like that image better, but it looks too off center. The on that's currently up, albeit small, still has its charms, even though it has a lot of visual weight on the bottom. --Hiryuu
I added Oneiros' version to the website, as I see that it is the best yet, but Green Dragon still has the final say. --Blue Dragon 09:18, 17 September 2006 (MDT)
Huh, now that I see it up there in the logo spot, it does look a little big and heavy. Possbily making it a bit of a dark grey instead of solid black might help, plus resizing just a bit. The balance problem Hiryuu mentioned could be solved with a heavier font for the word "Wiki"; I played around with a few before picking that one. --Oneiros 10:25, 17 September 2006 (MDT)
I like the new logo a lot. However, if anyone can come up with a better logo and put it here we could see which one really deserves to be on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon
Meh... it looks better! --Gold Dragon 14:32, 17 September 2006 (MDT)
I vote for a more horizontal movement. The "down" path of Wiki interrupts the viewing. Try D&D on top, going to the right, then Wiki underneath in a flatter font. The visual details are nice, it's only the arrangement that irks me.. and I have a degree in graphic design :P --Sigendymion
Would it be possible for you to make a better one? --Green Dragon 21:55, 18 September 2006 (MDT)
Hmm! Don't expect anything immediately, please, but yes I will have a go at it, with my Photoshoppy. :D --Sigendymion
Okay. --Green Dragon 20:12, 20 September 2006 (MDT)

Not just a new logo...[edit]

This discussion is now taking place through the campaign for a new skin.

This goes along with what Sledged was saying sometime earlier... I believe that D&D Wiki really needs a D&D oriented skin, complete with a logo, background, and color choices for MonoBook. I think that it would be great if people could all come up with their own ideas of a D&D Wiki skin, and then we can see which one would be the best. --Blue Dragon 16:58, 17 September 2006 (MDT)

Guess that means I should get off my ass and start working on the D&D wiki again. DAMN YOU HP AND YOUR FORCING ME TO BUILD A CUSTOM PC! --Pz.Az.04Maus 22:38, 17 September 2006 (MDT)
Er... Maybe. That's all I will say, as I am not sure if I will like it yet. I really like MonoBook, but something else may be a good idea. --Green Dragon 21:54, 18 September 2006 (MDT)
Possible D&D Wiki Skin2.jpgSidelogo DandWiki3 copy.jpg
I think the first image would be good for the article blocks, and the background behind logo on the second image would be great for the background behind the article blocks. The colors used for the text in the logo could be used for the border colors.
Also Special:Mypage/monobook.css can be used for users to change the monobook look for themselves. So anyone with ideas can actually see how their CSS themes look on the site without affecting anyone else. —Sledged 13:46, 20 September 2006 (MDT)
Try a dark brown font on off-white background. It's still legible while contributing a pleasant "sepia ink" look. --Sigendymion
You guys figure out something good then I will see if it should become the main skin for D&D Wiki. Good luck. --Green Dragon 20:12, 20 September 2006 (MDT)
I've got a color scheme (layout changes will come later) that can be viewed by following this link (so long as you're logged in) and inserting the following line into the page:
@import "/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Sledged/monobook.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css"
If there is already CSS formatting there, comment everything thing out except the afformentioned line. You might need to clear your brower's cache. —Sledged 20:47, 23 September 2006 (MDT)
First off, the import thing did not work so I just put the actual CSS on my user-skin page. Anyway, my big problem now is do I like the Monobook one more or less than the one you made... --Green Dragon 13:22, 24 September 2006 (MDT)
I have added your skin to the site's list of skins to make it easier for people to use. If you modify your skin just run and fill out the information. It is looking great, and I am glad that D&D Wiki will eventually have its own look and feel, (while still being seen as a wiki). --Blue Dragon 13:38, 24 September 2006 (MDT)
Is user CSS enabled on this site ($wgAllowUserCss)? —Sledged 12:09, 21 September 2006 (MDT)
Sorry, I do not know. I will ask Blue Dragon tomorrow. Hope it's not that much of an inconvenience. --Green Dragon 22:29, 21 September 2006 (MDT)
It was turned off, but Blue Dragon just turned it on. Hope it helps. --Green Dragon 15:09, 23 September 2006 (MDT)
Thanks a bunch! —Sledged 20:49, 23 September 2006 (MDT)
Wait, might I ask is User CSS = personal skins? --Pz.Az.04Maus 11:50, 29 September 2006 (MDT)
Yes, you might ask, and, yes, it is. Here is more about them. —Sledged 12:34, 29 September 2006 (MDT)

Experimental Popups[edit]

Popups have been added to this website. This is not permanent, however, and every person should provide their input as to whether or not they make D&D Wiki easier to navigate. Thanks, --Blue Dragon 11:07, 30 September 2006 (MDT)

Pop-ups are the wrong word.... The thing that Blue Dragon is talking about are the things that show a "preview" of the article from the source page. Personally I think they get in the way of editing, but I am not sure for someone that does not use the site as much as I do, and mostly looks at content instead of editing pages. What do you guys think? --Green Dragon 19:05, 30 September 2006 (MDT)
I agree that they might be good for new or seldom visiters. They're pretty nifty, but I think once the novelty of it wears off, I'll find them getting in the way. Since each user can choose whether or not to disable it, I say keep it. BTW, how did this idea come about? —Sledged 20:19, 30 September 2006 (MDT)
This idea came around with me browsing an AJAX website and thinking that it would be rather useful on D&D Wiki to see a preview of what items you are looking for. It is mostly for lists where there are tons and tons of items and you are not sure what they all are. All that you would have to do is scroll over interesting sounding ones, and you would be able to tell whether you want to view that page or not. I have not yet implemented a way for users to choose whether they want to have navigational popups or not, but I will in the near future. --Blue Dragon 20:33, 30 September 2006 (MDT)
Ah, I see, the "disable popups" option is only for the present page. —Sledged 10:40, 1 October 2006 (MDT)
True. It is a good idea to keep it, I will just disable them on my user... This should help seldom visitors. --Green Dragon 10:48, 1 October 2006 (MDT)
Never mind, they lagged the site and made it harder to browse. Hope no one minds, but they are now gone. --Green Dragon 19:37, 5 October 2006 (MDT)

New MediaWiki version[edit]

D&D Wiki is now running on a new version of MediaWiki (version 1.8.0). Many problems may arise in the near future, so please let me know of any. Thanks, and I hope that everything works smoothly, --Blue Dragon 21:09, 10 October 2006 (MDT)

User Races and all the pages that use the same list format do not work. --Green Dragon 23:11, 10 October 2006 (MDT)

Thumbnail problems now fixed[edit]

There were recently some problems in accessing ImageMagick's "convert" utility which is used to create thumbnails for images. This problem should now be fixed. --Blue Dragon 10:58, 5 November 2006 (MST)

Thanks. --Green Dragon 21:22, 6 November 2006 (MST)

Welcome new admins Xenophon and Calidore Chase[edit]

Hey i'm just saying welcome X.x --DeadlyNightShade 08:05, 16 December 2006 (MST)

glad to be here --Calidore Chase 13:41, 16 December 2006 (MST)
Thank you! --Xenophon 16:26, 16 December 2006 (MST)

Reading HTTP POST and GET Parameters[edit]

Does anyone know if it's possible to read HTTP request parameters using wiki-magic? And if so, how? —Sledged 14:00, 18 December 2006 (MST)

It's all greek to me. I have to cut and paste like a third grader to get my pages to work. Heck Xenophon usually is my biggest help. --Calidore Chase 15:34, 18 December 2006 (MST)
...asking Blue Dragon. I will have him respond soon. --Green Dragon 15:48, 18 December 2006 (MST)
Hi Sledged. It is not possible... that would be too much of a security flaw. If I allow CGI scripting on all of the wiki pages, then any random user could easily trash the site. If you have a specific use then contact me, and I am sure that we can work something out. --Blue Dragon 16:56, 18 December 2006 (MST)
I kinda figured there'd be security issues, but I thought someone at WikiMedia would've put something together without exposing the security risks, especially since PHP has a very straight-forward built-in mechanic for retrieving HTTP request parameters. In the end, the result wouldn't be all that different from passing parameters to a template. —Sledged 20:16, 18 December 2006 (MST)
If it is possible using MediaWiki, then I am sure that there are not any [major] security risks. You might want to post on the newsletter and see if anybody knows how. If they do not, then I am rather sure that I could do it as an extension without any major security flaws. I was under the impression that you wanted MediaWiki to be hacked so that every page could use GET parameters by default. --Blue Dragon 06:42, 19 December 2006 (MST)
Perhaps I should give you and idea of what I'd like to accomplish, because grabbing HTTP request parameters is just a small part of it. Essentially, I'd like to implement something like this on the wiki. The results page of the filter would have <DPL> elements built based on filter criteria, which in turn would list all the spells that match the criteria. In order to build the <DPL> elements, the page would need the capability to read the HTTP request parameters. One thing I noticed is that there isn't a mechanic or extension to create forms with anything other than text boxes and buttons in wikis (at least not that I've found). —Sledged 09:41, 19 December 2006 (MST)
It seems hacking the requests is kind of a cumbersome task when compared to having the data in a database or XML file and pull it forward with something like AJAX. Trouble is populating that table. --Xenophon 15:50, 19 December 2006 (MST)
I suppose I could do it using AJAX, but AJAX always leaves a bad taste in my mouth and renews my appreciation for users that disable javascript in their browsers. However, I think will take a crack at it using AJAX. —Sledged 19:47, 19 December 2006 (MST)
Just so you know, Blue Dragon will be allowing a certain page to "Read HTTP POST and GET Parameters" soon. So, if you want to wait your wishes will be soon be granted, however, you can also just make it in AJAX. Blue Dragon will verify what I am saying now soon... --Green Dragon 20:22, 19 December 2006 (MST)
You guys might not know what AJAX is. AJAX means that XML is based from the browser (client side) to a CGI script which strictly responds with more XML that is parsed by the client through JavaScript and then displayed on the screen. This is a few thousands times more difficult than getting a simple HTTP request extension running. AJAX is very complicated and can not be adequately completed in one day. I hope you guys understand that AJAX on pages such as Google Maps and GMail took hundreds of programmers several years to get fully working. There is a reason that the technology has been around for a very long time, but it is only being implemented now. I have done several AJAX websites before, but the AJAX has always been in a closed environment where security was not a huge concern. On this website security is a huge concern, and cross-browser compatability would be a huge hurdle as well (DHTML is VERY different from Mozilla to IE). I would be happy to hack together an HTTP request extension for you, but AJAX would require working outside of MediaWiki and would be very, very difficult to implement correctly. Let me know what you want in a detailed manner. --Blue Dragon 21:31, 19 December 2006 (MST)
I think you misunderstand what AJAX really is. Plain and simple it's the XMLHttpRequest object (JavaScript), DHTML, and XML. Anything else is not AJAX. I understand that large entities like Google Maps do use some CGI witchcraft behind the scenes but the core is AJAX. You need to do NOTHING ELSE but have a browser that supports JavaScript (Anyone who runs it disable ought to get get IE7, Firefox, or Safari). AJAX applications can work as far back as IE5. --Xenophon 08:27, 20 December 2006 (MST)
Please listen. I have programmed AJAX applications before. If you honestly think that you know that you know what you are talking about, then give me a call and let me yell at you over the phone why it is not useful for this website. Do some simple Google searches, and you will soon be enlightened with the underlying issues behind AJAX. You are calling the *client side* JavaScript aspect of AJAX the entire thing. That is absurd. You need to realize that the JavaScript part has to RECEIVE the data from somewhere. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you say that it is strictly client side and does not require CGI. If it is stricty client-side and just uses DHTML, then what are you going to accomplish Pretty formatting? Please do not say something so incredibly wrong without doing a few Google searches (and no, I am not impressed by you knowing what the XMLHttpRequest object is -- I do realize that you can type AJAX into Google). --Blue Dragon 16:50, 20 December 2006 (MST)
Xenophon's right about AJAX not requiring CGI scripts. The XMLHttpRequest object can be used to do just a simple synchronous or asynchronous HTTP request/response transaction (which means it can utilize CGI scripts, but doesn't have to). XMLHttpRequest is designed specifically to handle XML responses. I have used AJAX for various reasons over the past four or five years, and it's been a pain in the ass every time (though, admittedly, it is getting better. I look forward to when it's even more standardized. has even gotten involved). Though every browser implements it, they don't all implement it in the same way. Every AJAX application I've ever seen is riddled with exception code to make it work among the different browsers.
As AJAX applies to what I'm trying to accomplish, combining the general problems with AJAX with notion of having to change the back-end data repository is a far more cumbersome solution than putting together a custom wiki extension. —Sledged 10:15, 20 December 2006 (MST)
Sledged, you are absolutely correct. Thanks for understanding what AJAX is and not getting me annoyed. --Blue Dragon 16:52, 20 December 2006 (MST)
Enough with the AJAX discussion, its not going to be used. Stop it. A custom wiki extension is what you want, make that then contact Blue Dragon, don't get in an argument over this. If any one argues over this any more they will get banned for a week (except Blue Dragon). I know I am laying down a firm had, but I don't want disputes among the admins. --Green Dragon 15:53, 20 December 2006 (MST)
Excellent! It's just as well. As soon as I hit the "Save page" button I realized AJAX wouldn't be enough by itself. It's far less elegant solution in that the it would require changes to the back-end database beyond what is needed for the wiki, whereas accessing request parameters could be done with custom extension, or so I suspect. —Sledged 21:26, 19 December 2006 (MST)
Again, Sledged, you hit the point that I am trying to make right on its head. Thanks! --Blue Dragon 16:55, 20 December 2006 (MST)

Link Colors[edit]

Proposed Color Scheme #1[edit]

Has any more thought been put into changing the link colors? I know some people are fond of the blue/purple, but medium brown and a deep reddish color, for example, might be much better. The blue really stands out, and I'm starting to hate the purple "used" link color. Thoughts? --EldritchNumen 01:00, 11 January 2007 (MST)

I had started looking for a better selection of colors for the links a while ago, but I ended up putting it on the back-burner. If you'd like to take a crack at it, edit this page. After you save your changes, you might need to hit your browser's reload button to see them take effect. (Simply following a link to another page might not work by itself.) The changes you make to that page will not affect users other than you. —Sledged 10:31, 11 January 2007 (MST)
If you do it, you will have to make your own variant Sledged skin, seeing that so far I have seen no 'other' link colors that look good. I don't think I would like wierd link colors... However, my view is not ground in stone :). --Green Dragon 20:45, 11 January 2007 (MST)
Just in case anyone was curious, these are the colors I've been using. They don't have the best contrast, but seem to work pretty well.
<style type="text/css">
#p-personal li a:link {color: #5C3317; text-decoration: none; }
a:link {color: #5C3317; text-decoration: none; }
a:active {color: #5C3317; text-decoration: none; }
a:visited {color: #660000; text-decoration: underline; }
a:hover {color: #660000; text-decoration: none; }
--EldritchNumen 18:19, 20 January 2007 (MST)
Just so that everyone can see what the proposed colors look like (and in context).
Current Proposed
my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc... my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc...
blah yadda yadda external links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda external links spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda interwiki links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda interwiki links spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existant pages spammity-spam blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existant pages spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existant pages spammity-spam blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existant pages spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam
Sledged 08:52, 21 January 2007 (MST)
Reminds me of spam, I think I need to block EldritchNumen and Sledged... :P. Anyway, go ahead and add it to your custom skin, but I dont think I want it on the main skin. Sorry. --Green Dragon 18:48, 21 January 2007 (MST)

Proposed Color Scheme #2[edit]

I've been noticing that the "visited interwiki links" are hard to see, and considered changing them for my own configuration. Then I noticed this thread. I like some of EldritchNumen's suggestions, but even they don't quite cut it for me.

As I'm sure most of you know, one principle of good UI design is to assume your user is colorblind -- or rather, use color effectively for those who have color vision, but don't unduly handicap those who don't. In the case of link colors, I would interpret this principle to say that all links should have a different shade or brightness from the surrounding text, something a colorblind user could detect. Of course, it's nearly impossible for a non-colorblind user to evaluate this effectively. Is anyone out there colorblind, who would like to pipe in?

You can find some of my personal color judgments on [[User_talk:Cuthalion#Colors|my talk page]. I'd be interested to hear how others' opinions correlate with mine, particularly anyone who is colorblind.

It seems to me the ideal would be a color scheme that meets the following criteria, roughly in order of priority:

  1. It is easy to read.
  2. It is easy for people with or without color vision to distinguish links from surrounding text.
  3. It is easy for people with color vision to distinguish different color links from each other.
  4. It is close to what people are already familiar with.

The current color scheme fails criteria (2) and (3), IMHO.

Based on these criteria, my personal judgments, and my best guess as to what a colorblind person would see, I'd recommend the following scheme:

Current Proposed
my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc... my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc...
blah yadda yadda external links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda external links spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda interwiki links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda interwiki links spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam
blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam

This mostly amounts to brightening the existing colors, as you would when restoring an old painting.

Note that I used the same color for non-existent pages whether visited or not, since I can't figure out what it means to have viewed the content of a page with no content. However, I wouldn't mind being overruled if someone finds that distinction useful.

--Cúthalion 11:58, 9 February 2007 (MST)

Here is how I (a Red-Green colorblind person) sees the proposed changes.
  1. The "my talk preferences my watchlist etc..." looks only a little blue-er, and lighter (more baby blueish). - Maybe a little worse.
  2. The "external links" looks more cyan - not better looking
  3. The "interwiki links" look almost the same, a little lighter - Okay.
  4. The "visited interwiki links to non-existent pages" looks only a little more red (looks like you flipped this and the next one) - Better
  5. The "interwiki links to non-existent pages" looks duller (looks like you flipped this and the above one) - Not as good.
  6. The "active interwiki links" looks only a little brighter - Maybe a little better.
So, this is just how I see it... --Green Dragon 23:06, 12 February 2007 (MST)
  1. better
  2. worse
  3. better
  4. better
  5. better
  6. worse
  7. better
Just my two cents. I like most of those suggestions much better (except for the two I mentioned as worse, which are much worse. -EldritchNumen 22:21, 14 February 2007 (MST)

Proposed Color Scheme #3[edit]

Okay, so folks have suggested another criterion (#4):

  1. Easy to read.
  2. Easy for people (with or without color vision) to distinguish links from surrounding text.
  3. Easy for people with color vision to distinguish different color links from each other.
  4. Pleasing to the eye.
  5. Close to what people are familiar with.

Naturally, Green Dragon and EldritchNumen have opposite opinions on what is pleasing for almost every one of my suggestions. EldritchNumen apparently has stronger opinions (perhaps you have better color vision?), but Green Dragon signs the paychecks (if there were any).

Everyone seems to agree that my suggestion for external links is ugly. (I can't disagree.) It occurs to me, is there even a need to distinguish external links from internal links by color, since they're already distinguished by that funky box-arrow graphic thing?

There also seems to be a consensus that the color for missing links should remain unchanged.

My biggest concern is still the visited links (which Green Dragon didn't comment on). If we change only that one, I'll be content. (Well, I'm never content, but you know what I mean.)

In the interest of ... something interesting ... here's another proposal, incorporating as much of the feedback I've received as possible. Actually, it's several proposals in one, since I include a few options.

Current Proposed
1. my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc... 1. my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc... (same as #3)
2. blah yadda yadda external links spammity-spam 2. blah yadda yadda external links (same as #3) spammity-spam
3. blah yadda yadda interwiki links spammity-spam 3.a. blah yadda yadda interwiki links (one idea) spammity-spam
3.b. blah yadda yadda interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
3.c. blah yadda yadda interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
3.d. blah yadda yadda interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
4. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links spammity-spam 4.a. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links (one idea) spammity-spam
4.b. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
4.c. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
4.d. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
5. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam 5. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existent pages (same as #6) spammity-spam
6. blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam 6. blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existent pages (unchanged) spammity-spam
7. blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam 7. blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam

(3a) is intended to mimic the current setting for external links, although I don't know the exact RGB.

I think I'd vote for (3b) and (4c). That would be:

Proposed Color Scheme #3.1[edit]

Current Proposed
1. my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc... 1. my talk   preferences   my watchlist   etc... (same as #3)
2. blah yadda yadda external links spammity-spam 2. blah yadda yadda external links (same as #3) spammity-spam
3. blah yadda yadda interwiki links spammity-spam 3. blah yadda yadda interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
4. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links spammity-spam 4. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links (another idea) spammity-spam
5. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam 5. blah yadda yadda visited interwiki links to non-existent pages (same as #6) spammity-spam
6. blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existent pages spammity-spam 6. blah yadda yadda interwiki links to non-existent pages (unchanged) spammity-spam
7. blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam 7. blah yadda yadda active interwiki links spammity-spam

My biggest concern is whether the brown shows up well enough. Well, that and the situation in the Middle East. --Cúthalion 12:25, 15 February 2007 (MST)

I like all the changed except #2... --Green Dragon 16:59, 15 February 2007 (MST)
I much prefer the previous (brighter) purple color for #4 [4a above] (rather than the sort of salmon color... it is bland). I am mostly ambivalent towards #2, though I slightly prefer the proposed one (but only apathetically). The other proposed colors look great. --EldritchNumen 17:34, 15 February 2007 (MST)
Actually, looking again a few hours later, I think I agree with EldritchNumen (including only a slight preference for the proposed #2). I proposed the various shades of brown mainly for Sledged's sake. --Cúthalion 18:05, 15 February 2007 (MST)
Well, there seems to be some interest, so should we open this up for voting for a week or so? --EldritchNumen 15:03, 16 February 2007 (MST)
I'm not sure what that means, but let me know if you need me to do something. --Cúthalion 20:33, 16 February 2007 (MST)
I think we should put this to a vote. Does one of the admins want to quickly rig up a news page with the old and proposed colors and let people comment and vote? --EldritchNumen 16:40, 20 February 2007 (MST)
Or someone that will soon become an admin.... I will do it if you don't want to, please don't feel pressured, just let me know what you decide. --Green Dragon 20:49, 28 February 2007 (MST)

Back to MediaWiki 1.8.3[edit]

We recently tried moving to MediaWiki 1.9.0, the latest release, but found a few problems with it. We have reverted back to MediaWiki 1.8.3, and hopefully everything should function as expected. I will continue to work on complete integration with MediaWiki 1.9.0 to bring in all of the bug fixes, but recently it was eating up all of the CPU when a page was loaded. --Blue Dragon 15:29, 12 January 2007 (MST)

Thanks. --Green Dragon 18:33, 12 January 2007 (MST)
And back to MediaWiki 1.9.0 again. Hopefully this time everything should work as expected. Let me know if there are any problems. --Blue Dragon 21:02, 13 January 2007 (MST)
First problem is the patroller.cgi with the * or IP input. Also, why is Spider Rider (DnD Class) looking like it is? --Green Dragon 00:58, 14 January 2007 (MST)
Patroller.cgi has now been fixed. I added User:Dandwiki Helper to the "patroller" usergroup. Everything should as before. And one thing to remember, it is ".*" not *. --Blue Dragon 10:29, 14 January 2007 (MST)
Patrolling IPs still does not work. --Green Dragon 23:39, 15 January 2007 (MST)
What do you mean by Spider Rider (DnD Class) looking the way it does? --Blue Dragon 10:26, 14 January 2007 (MST)
Thanks so far, however I mean the top bar (with all the tabs) is very small, along with the side bar. Can this be fixed? --Green Dragon 12:06, 14 January 2007 (MST)
The problem had nothing to do with the upgrade, but with it being poorly coded. There will divs that had float: right; on them and were not closed, lapping into the table. That is a solution for a disaster. It should be fixed now. --Blue Dragon 21:00, 14 January 2007 (MST)
Thanks. --Green Dragon 09:22, 15 January 2007 (MST)
Another problem is that the maximum execution time is low again so the NPCs do not work. Try loading any of them to see what I mean. --Green Dragon 01:04, 14 January 2007 (MST)
The problem with NPCs has now been fixed. This is something that I did not decide to include in my diff, and I just forgot about it. --Blue Dragon 10:26, 14 January 2007 (MST)
Thanks. --Green Dragon 12:06, 14 January 2007 (MST)

OGL compatible with GNU FLD?[edit]

The Open Game License requires that all content derived from the System Reference Document or other OGC must be released as Open Game Content itself. Why release OGC-derived content under the GNU FDL and not the OGL? --Khuxan 16:25, 14 January 2007 (MST)

Hello Khuxan, The content on this website that is homebrew can be released under any license. It is property of the person who has created it because it is not directly derived from OGL content. The style of writing and formatting is not copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast -- that would be like copyrighting the style of a book, it is impossible. As long as a race is not half-OGL and half-homebrew, it may be released under any license that is desired. If you find content on this website that is half-SRD and not marked as OGL, please let us know! The reason that we have chosen to use the GNU FDL instead of the OGL is that we feel that the OGL is too restrictive. We want to give DMs as much control over their campaign as they want. We want to legally allow them to modify any of the content that they use in their campaign. The OGL does not give them this freedom. --Blue Dragon 09:00, 15 January 2007 (MST)
Khuxan, I know you are a fan of the OGL, however I believe that it is a flawed license. The OGL cannot be modified in any way when enforced strictly (lucky Wizards does not enforce the OGL strictly). So, it is not legally correct to modify the Fighter or anything else when using it in a campaign. Nothing under the OGL can be modified, and if we used that on this site it would not work. D&D Wiki is about taking items and making them balanced, and with the OGL in place we could not do this. We, as a community, could not change items to make them better, they could only stay how they are. A perfect example of this is all the OGL items that are locked. No matter how poorly made they were we cannot change them at all. These are the reasons why D&D Wiki uses the GNU FDL, which allows tings to be changed, instead of the restrictive OGL. --Green Dragon 09:21, 15 January 2007 (MST)
The OGL and the GNU do cause issues when they interact. (For the most part, they do not interact.) We have done our best to separate them in order to avoid confllicts. Where there is interaction, we believe that we are using OGL items under the fair use provisions of copyright law. I do admit that this project would be simpler if we were entirely under one license. --Dmilewski 10:05, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Modifying OGL Content[edit]

Green Dragon 09:21, 15 January 2007 (MST) wrote: The OGL cannot be modified in any way when enforced strictly (lucky Wizards does not enforce the OGL strictly).

Where do you see this? I'm no lawyer, but I've been reading the OGL, and I don't get that interpretation.
  • Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document (“SRD”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a. [emphasis added]
  • 1. ... (b) "Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; [emphasis added]
  • 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
It appears to me that we are free to make "derivative material" to our heart's content, so long as the resulting work is also under the OGL, except for clearly delineated proprietary material.
So, for instance, if we want to publish a modified, improved, and adapted version of the Fighter class, we have explicit permission to do so, so long as the resulting product is licensed under the OGL. (Heck, we could even potate it if we want to.)
On the other hand, when we publish a class definition (or other document) which is derived from OGL material and we do not license it as OGL, then we are in violation.
Am I missing something? --Cúthalion 09:44, 13 February 2007 (MST)
By "modify" I think they mean format, right? --Green Dragon 22:30, 13 February 2007 (MST)
Only if "addition", "extension" and "adapted" also refer to formatting. --Cúthalion 12:39, 15 February 2007 (MST)

Memory leaks[edit]

Has anyone noticed problems with memory leaks while running this wiki under Firefox? When I've been running for a while (i.e a few days), everything slows to a crawl, and I notice that Firefox is using upwards of 200MB RAM. When I close it down and bring it back up, everything's all right.

There's probably nothing we can do about it, but I'm curious whether others have experienced this.

--Cúthalion 07:39, 9 February 2007 (MST)

I've never had problems with that and I use Firefox. Are you using an up to date version? I assume you are not using a beta version as well. The only other question is if you are using a modded version. Aarnott 07:43, 9 February 2007 (MST)
I'm using Firefox (stable release) version I do have several extensions installed. If one of them is responsible, it's going to be a bear to track down. I can live with closing and reopening Firefox every few days. --Cúthalion 08:06, 9 February 2007 (MST)
It is not probably that a flaw in D&D Wiki's code is causing this problem. I am pretty sure that it is one of your extensions, so I guess you should either live with it or begin to isolate every extension. With the amount you have, and the memory leak only coming on after a day or so, that really could be a big problem. --Blue Dragon 14:35, 12 February 2007 (MST)
I use Firefox and also have not experienced a problem, sorry. --Green Dragon 23:08, 12 February 2007 (MST)

Recent changes glitch[edit]

I'm trying to pull up recent changes, using:

  • 500 changes
  • last 30 days
  • namespace: all
  • bots hidden, everything else shown

I'm only getting around 20-25 hits. Anyone know why? I'm pretty sure this worked for me the other day.

Thanks. --Cúthalion 09:17, 12 February 2007 (MST)

Are you using the Javascript version of Recent Changes (activated in user-preferences)? --Green Dragon 10:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Yes, I am. I just changed the default titles to 500, but that didn't help, eiher. --Cúthalion 11:42, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Is this still a problem? If it is, then please send me over a screenshot so I can try to understand what is happening with your computer. Squid does cache partially per IP -- so try pressing Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+Shift+R and see if the problem goes away. You might also want to try playing with the settings a bit. I hope that this helps, --Blue Dragon 14:34, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Did it just say "Move log" a lot? --Green Dragon 23:57, 12 February 2007 (MST)
See User_talk:Blue_Dragon#Upload_spreadsheet.3F. --Cúthalion 13:04, 15 February 2007 (MST)

ToDo index[edit]

</nowiki> What would you think of putting a ToDo link on this page (or somewhere equally well-traveled), which points to an index of all the various (public) ToDo sections? e.g.:

--Cúthalion 07:53, 16 February 2007 (MST)

Yes. --Dmilewski 09:31, 16 February 2007 (MST)
As a news item, or how would it look exactly? --Green Dragon 10:31, 16 February 2007 (MST)
This is something like what I had in mind:

[Main Page]

== Welcome to D&D Wiki! ==


[ToDo List]

== ToDo List ==

These are various areas where you could contribute to development on the D&D Wiki. But before you do anything major, please drop Green Dragon a note so he doesn't have a heart attack.

Although now I'm thinking maybe the link should go on Dungeons and Dragons instead. --Cúthalion 12:26, 16 February 2007 (MST)
Just found another one: Things to do --Cúthalion 21:50, 17 February 2007 (MST)
Maybe a 'To Do' category? I've started leaving ToDo notes at the top of the discussion pages of various sections. (I couldn't figure out a better place for them.) A formal Todo List for a section linked into a Todo Category could be useful. Things to think about. --Dmilewski 11:59, 18 February 2007 (MST)
I like that better than my suggestion. --Cúthalion 12:27, 18 February 2007 (MST)
Would a TODO link be a good idea with the new proposed Talk:Dungeons and Dragons#Other => Discussion & Guidelines. Drop a note that a TODO should be added their, I think it would be good to have one on Dungeons and Dragons and their is no better time to propose one. --Green Dragon 18:02, 26 February 2007 (MST)

Power users?[edit]

What would you think of adding an intermediate category of users, power users? These would not have the full system access of an admin, but would be able to edit locked pages. Just a thought. --Cúthalion 22:02, 17 February 2007 (MST)

I am against it as I don't see what would make them different from Admins. Maybe if their were more differences between the power-users and Admins, however I don't see how that is possible. --Green Dragon 21:54, 6 March 2007 (MST)
I withdraw the suggestion. I was thinking that the admin had complete sysadmin powers, when in fact MediaWiki calls sysadmins "bureaucrats", and "sysops" are more like what I was conceiving as power users. --Cúthalion 14:21, 7 March 2007 (MST)
Except that the only power bureaucrats gain is the power to change other users status' around. --Green Dragon 15:55, 7 March 2007 (MST)

Talk Pages Enough?[edit]

I personally believe that D&D Wiki's talk pages are not enough i think that a fourm and/or a chat room/section would be much easier to communicate with each other i often come on and have no idea of what has been/is going on! i believe fourms would help reduce that problem! that way i do not have to go through every ones talk pages to learn what is going on! the chat room would help new pepole (n00bs) like me know which admins are on so we can ask them for direct help not having to post it on green dragons and others user pages to ask! That way it is fast and efficient! i also believe it would attract more users! --MeDieViL 16:19, 26 February 2007 (MST)

Well... Recent Changes with "my watchlist" is a good way to check if pages that you have edited have been changed. However, the idea of a "discussion area" is being proposed in Talk:Dungeons and Dragons#Other => Discussion & Guidelines. You may want to voice your opinion their and say you would use a "discussion area". --Green Dragon 17:58, 26 February 2007 (MST)

Hello, my friends :) I looking for XRumer for free !

Would you make advice me, where I can download it? It is really the best program for SEO !..

P.S. I need XRumer of only latest version - 12.0.6, all other versions are too old and are not effective!


Is there a place where we can post about a project we want to start? (Sorry, I should know this...) Armond 14:48, 6 March 2007 (MST)

What kind of project? --Green Dragon 21:52, 6 March 2007 (MST)
Shoot. It had something to do with Sorcerer and Wizard spells and converting them to a proper format or something like that... I've forgotten for now. I'll remember eventually. But where should I put it when I remember? Would here work? Armond 12:02, 7 March 2007 (MST)
Is the project formatting all the spells on D&D Wiki to the correct format - or what? I am a little confused still. If it is just a TODO item it should be posted on D&D Wiki:Things to do. --Green Dragon 15:53, 7 March 2007 (MST)
I remember now. I'll post it there, thanks. Armond 14:44, 12 March 2007 (MDT)
No problem. --Green Dragon 23:43, 12 March 2007 (MDT)


Should this include {{Admin_Locked_Page}}? --Cúthalion 09:18, 7 March 2007 (MST)

I think that template would be obtrusive on the main page because the main page has so little content on it. It's a small page and I would not want to put a large template on it. What do you think? --Green Dragon 09:57, 7 March 2007 (MST)
No strong opinion. I see your point. I'm actually making the locked template less intrusive on WikiRPS. --Cúthalion 10:06, 7 March 2007 (MST)
Hm... I like it - I may implemet it here. --Green Dragon 10:07, 7 March 2007 (MST)

Double redirects - celebrate![edit]

As of this moment, we now officially have less than six hundred double redirects! Thanks to everyone who's worked on this, and hopefully we'll be rid of them all soon.

On a side note, how did we get all these? >.> I get the feeling sometime before I became active here a bunch of pages were moved at least twice.

I'm going back to flooding recent changes with redirect fixes now... Armond 12:14, 13 March 2007 (MDT)

Mainly the SRD was moved to it's own namespace and DnD Monsters was changed to DnD Creatures. --Green Dragon 22:44, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
We're down to 500 exactly, not including ones on Candidates for Deletion and the locked ones I've thrown on your talk page. Woot. And there's the bell :P Armond 12:35, 14 March 2007 (MDT)

Page Titles[edit]

I've been changing pages so that the first heading is only depth 1 (one equal sign). Then I remembered something I'd read, and looked it up in Wikipedia's documentation:

Start with 2 equals signs not 1 because 1 creates H1 tags which should be reserved for page title.

So, to follow the official guidelines, any of our pages that currently start at depth 1 should start at depth 2 instead. --Cúthalion 12:52, 13 March 2007 (MDT)

On D&D Wiki H1 titles are mainly used only to reiderate the title on a certain page; to separate the content from templates etc. H1 titles are not used how H2 titles are used, ever. D&D Wiki has it's own little styles and sometimes Wikipedias guidelines are not the best choice for this site. --Green Dragon 22:48, 13 March 2007 (MDT)


I am sorry for the downtime that D&D Wiki experienced today. The log files were not rotating properly in MySQL and had grown to be too large. This problem will not happen again. — Blue Dragon (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2007 (MDT)

:) No problem. We were a little concerned, but these sorts of things do happen! Don't worry about it-- –EldritchNumen 16:14, 17 April 2007 (MDT)


Wikpedia's fair use policy states:

An editor uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia must provide a detailed "fair use" rationale, or the uploaded material will be deleted.

I would recommend this site adopt a similar policy, possibly including procedures for tagging for review.

I would also recommend that we follow Wikipedia's lead and assume good faith on the part of someone posting an image. Until proven otherwise, we should assume that someone posting copyrighted material was unaware of the issues involved. (Indeed, I didn't consider the issues, myself, until someone else brought them up.) --Cúthalion 08:56, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

Currently, it works as you said above (like how Wikipedia handles it) it just is not written out. If you would like to make a page about Images and copyrights please go ahead—D&D Wiki needs one! However, if you do not it will just be something that people will slowly come to understand and they will hope that D&D Wiki treats images the same as Wikipedia. Anyway, right now there are so little images on this site it is not a bog problem or a big issue, however that could easily change... --Green Dragon 22:19, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

D&D Wikia[edit]

Kindred spirits? --Cúthalion 22:20, 19 April 2007 (MDT)

That wiki is older and very inactive (See RC and stats). Anyway, there content is not quite on the same levels as D&D Wiki, in my opinion (I know, I am biased). --Green Dragon 22:24, 19 April 2007 (MDT)
"There are 120,707 registered users..." That's impressive. You're right, they're not nearly as well developed, but I figured it would at least be a good source of GFPL material. I just copied over: --Cúthalion 07:23, 20 April 2007 (MDT)
The reason they have so many users is because the users are the same throught the wikia wiki's. It's not that impressive as most of the users on the userlist have never seen that site. --Green Dragon 09:54, 20 April 2007 (MDT)
Ah, and here I thought it was a bug, when it was really a feature. :) --Cúthalion 22:02, 20 April 2007 (MDT)

Images available[edit]


I've uploaded a bunch of free content images to WikiRPS, and will be loading a bunch more. You can see what I've loaded so far by going to wikirps:Category:Weapon and scrolling to the bottom. Once the image appears to the right of this paragraph, you'll know that Blue Dragon has set up image sharing.Cúthalion (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2007 (MDT)

Good work. Link to them as appropriate, and thanks for finding them all :). --Green Dragon 14:46, 2 May 2007 (MDT)
Okay, I have added the proper links. One question for the users of this wiki: Do you want me to create and have all non-existing images point to there? There can only be one wiki which every wiki looks to for missing images, and I feel that would be more appropriate than both wikis linking to each other. — Blue Dragon (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2007 (MDT)
I think that should work. --Green Dragon 16:38, 3 May 2007 (MDT)
Not knowing much about it, I'm neutral. If it has advantages, go for it; if not, then don't. That's my two cents. --Armond (talk/contribs) 16:26, 4 May 2007 (MDT)
I'm not sure what you mean by non-existing images -- newly created images? -- but I like the idea of a central image repository. Thanks for thinking of this. Oh, wait, I get it. The link would look first on the local wiki, and only if it's not there, then it would look on I still like the idea, but I would hope SOP would be to upload all images to, unless you can think of a drawback to this. (I can't.)
Would it be possible to write a bot that moves all existing images from both sites over to That should be seamless with regard to pages that link them, right? We'd have to have a policy for collisions. Perhaps move all images from D&D Wiki, and then move all images from WikiRPS that don't duplicate an existing name. I'd be happy to review the remaining images. –Cúthalion (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2007 (MDT)
I moved them over, but I forgot to mention that there were two collisions. One was Padlock.png, and the other was Dirk.something. I looked the files over, and the both looked the same, so I just went ahead with the D&D Wiki version. There are backups of everything, so let me know if one of them is an outdated version. Thanks! — Blue Dragon (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2007 (MDT)
I'm surprised there weren't more collisions.
I copied Image:Padlock.png from D&D Wiki, so it makes sense the two copies would be the same. Image:Dirk.png is the one I uploaded, so if there's a problem, it'll be on the D&D Wiki side, unless it's a different file you saw.
Thanks a lot for doing all this. Cuthalion 22:40, 6 May 2007 (MDT)

Test, just a test[edit]

Hello. And Bye.

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!