Talk:Main Page/Archive 6

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 5 |
Archive 6 |

Shop locations ?[edit]

Hello every one. I want to ask, since i am in Amsterdam right now I would like to ask if any one knows a site and address of a dnd shop, and also I would like to suggest that we make a list of dnd shops in each country and city ? Jokeboy ( forgot which symbol was used to tag automatically

There's a thread here with answers for that very question, although it is 5 years old now.
I can also tell you that there are no shops that sell D&D products in Doncaster, UK (I have to travel to Patriot Games in Sheffield). Marasmusine (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (MDT)

You obviously haven't looked very well or asked anyone - Stamp Corner on Nether Hall Road definitely *have* sold D&D products, as that's where I got my PHB! Also, Waterstones in Frenchgate Centre can order almost anything. So stop whining and start asking!

Ugh, you're right, I can't believe I forgot, I used to go to Stamp Corner all the time when I was at school. Back when loose lead miniatures cost 20p each. I do go to Patriot Games generally, though, because the stock isn't behind a counter, it's easier to browse. I don't count Waterstones as a "DnD shop", if I'm going to order something, I'll do it from Amazon. Marasmusine (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2014 (MDT)
thanks a lot. though I couldn't access this site to check the page on time, although even if I did I couldn't have gone to the shop. but w/e I guess I will either wait for the next Intertrafic in Amsterdam which is in 2 years, or try to go there for a vacation because I am in love with that city. --Jokeboy (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2014 (MDT)
Also, I still suggest to the users or admins of to make a page where users can add the shop locations for all shops they know of. because I guess that not all things are available online, and if we are abroad and have the time why not check out a store. also could be of help for those that don't know all the shops in their own country. for example Marasmusine knows that there are no shops in Doncaster but there are some in Sheffield, but if there are other shop in nearby cities the users would let you know this way.... or something. ... or if someone know a list already available online that would be great :) --Jokeboy (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2014 (MDT)


I have a LARGE number of Books in mostly PDF format I'd like to contribute to the site,if anyone knows how I can do that,please contact me, please keep in mind the files comprise something in the order of 20-50 GB. Thanks.

What kind of books are there? 3.5e, 4e? Did you make them all yourself, or how are they licensed? --Green Dragon (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2014 (MDT)
Whole PDF files are NOT appropriate to post if they are copyrighted material. --Cedric, the Bard

Web Page Not Found Error[edit]

I have been trying to get into the 3.5e Complex Special Ability Components page and have tried several times, as lately I have noticed that if a Web Page Not Found Error pops up while perusing dandwiki you can just try to load up the page again and it usually works. However, this trick does not seem to work for this page. I have tried anywhere from 40-60 times just in this day, and have yet to get anything other than Web Page Not Found or, the more recent one, Bad Gateway Error. Though that I would bring this to your attention. --SilentPC (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2014 (CST)

Hi SilentPC, this should be fixed now. Thanks! — Blue Dragon (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2014 (MDT)
Yep, it's working for me now. Thanks and no problem, been at Dandwiki for a long time now and I love the idea of the site as well as most of the homebrewed material on here. If I can help in any way, I usually try to. --SilentPC (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2014 (CST)
For the record, the website does seem to go down an awful lot, for the last few months. Usually in small bursts. Jwguy (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2014 (MDT)
The server's harddrives are near capacity, and so is its RAM and CPU. I am actively working right now to get Blue Dragon to install the new hardware (including an additional SSD drive which should help with the database access times) which will resolve this problem. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2014 (MDT)
Things should be looking up with regard to this problem. Although some of the new hardware was defective and needs to be reinstalled later (additional RAM for the additional CPU), we are still using the previous RAM and the even older RAM that was initially purchased with this server configuration now. In addition the new HDDs and the new SSD should make things faster, so we hope that this problem is better. Near the end of the year all the new harddware will be installed and working, and then things should be in peak performance. Let me know if there are any more problems.
Keep in mind that in these next few days that D&D Wiki will be optimized for this new configuration, so you may see improvements incrementally in the near future from the time of this post onward. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2014 (MDT)
All the upgrades are now complete! Although previously the server was upgraded, I was unaware of the correct RAM for the motherboards specifications since 3x8 GB unbuffered server RAM does not work with it (since the old 3x8 GB buffered RAM they no longer sell– now they just sell it in sticks of 8 GB). Getting the right part took some time, but everything should be working now in full specifications!
As soon as a problem like this comes up again then I will have to work harder at the website hardware configuration. Please let me know if you are experiencing any problems. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2015 (MST)

I encountered this problem yesterday. Couldn't access the site at all for like 2 hours. I was in the middle of editing a page too. --Kydo (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2016 (MDT)

This has been resolved with a new hosting configuration. See also Old News. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

3.5e Class Preload[edit]

I've just noticed that the format of our 3.5e class preload is not like the format presented in the PHB. The PHB goes:

  • Lead text
  • Descriptive paragraphs on: Adventurers, Characteristics, Alignment, Religion, Background, Races, Classes, Role
  • Game Rule Information: Abilities, Alignment, Hit Die; Class Skills; Class Features; Level Table
  • Starting Package

Our preload misses some description sections, adds others that are unnecessary (or at least optional), doesn't sufficiently explain what is expected in each section (example, with races, this should describe what some races are like as this class, not just say what races are likely to be this class), splits descriptive text to be both above and below the game mechanics, uses different terms and formatting for the headers, and overall seems to be more work for an editor than is necessary.

If there's no objections, I will make a new preload that will better match the PHB and have clearer instructions (although it's too late to change the existing homebrew classes) Marasmusine (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2014 (MDT)

The class preload actually uses the most up-to-date format for the 3.5e classes, since the format has been changed a lot since the PHB ones. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2014 (MDT)
Is it supposed to be like those in PHB 2? Marasmusine (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2014 (MDT)
Because people seem to be really struggling to fill out those two or three pages worth of fluff, leaving many many half-finished pages. Wouldn't it be better to get the editor to at least fill out the "core" PHB1 descriptions, then make optional all the PHB2 stuff about NPCs, organizations, etc. Marasmusine (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2014 (MDT)
From the discussion:
This sample layout is based on the newer format WotC is using their more recent source books. I started with that and made changes from there:
Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)/Overview
Since 3.5e is no longer published and this format has been used widely, and I am going to say that no we will not change them. This is an unnecessary amount of work, only to bring back the pages to an older format, it is not worthwhile. If people want to use the SRD formats it's okay but not for an FA page though (there are some examples). I do not want to restrict creativity and homebrewing because of a format, thus they do not not need {{wikify}} if they use the SRD format- but the standard will be the preload format and FA's need this format. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2014 (MDT)
The thing is, it's not clear which sections are required for an FA article, and which sections are only required for the page not to be a "stub" or "wikify needed". What I'm asking is that the preload say "fill in these descriptions as a minimum" and then "optionally fill in these sections for FA standards". It could be there are classes that are currently tagged as a stub that don't need to be. Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2014 (MDT)
FA's need to have everything, "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles within D&D Wiki". Maybe {{stub}} should apply to classes which are missing Campaign Information entirely. What is fair? I believe that I have been adding it to pages which are missing any Campaign Information, except for NPCs. I have also been adding {{wikify}} to pages which use the PHB format, which I guess that I should no longer do. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2014 (MDT)
Sorry, I meant "It's not clear to editors looking at the preload which sections are required for FA and which are required for it not to be a stub". We might know that, but new editors who have just pressed "Add new class" don't, and maybe all they want to do is make sure that their class is listed in the table at 3.5e Base Classes rather than the "sin bin" at the bottom. I'd like the preload to be clear on what the minimum standards are. Marasmusine (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2014 (MDT)
We can change 3.5e Class Instructions to let users know the standards.
I have been adding {{stub}} to classes which are missing epic information, a starting package, or an entire sub section thereof; "Playing a", "in the World", "in the Game" but not an NPC.
Is the question if this is too much? I feel that this is adequate, since they are stubs if they are missing so much information. If we can agree that this is adequate, or discuss what is adequate then lets add it to the 3.5e Class Instructions.
{{abandoned}} can also be added, when the class is not at a fully playable stage (incomplete, bad mechanics, no direction)– again if we agree that this is adequate. {{delete}} is also when the class has two of the following problems: it is not at a fully playable stage, has problematic mechanics, no good text, and/or is grossly mis-formatted– again if we agree that this is adequate. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2014 (MDT)

3.5e infoboxes[edit]

If I could make a bold proposal, I think we should scrap the 3.5e class infobox. The ratings system isn't used anywhere else, and it can be unhelpful: if something is rated poorly, but is subsequently improved, the score doesn't take that into account. The averages also need manually recalculating everytime someone leaves their rating on the talk page, which isn't happening. Monitoring it is infeasable now we have hundreds of classes. It's enough that people leave their opinion on the talk page.

What else does the infobox do? 1) It let's us know if the page is in progress or finished. In any other category of page, we use the stub template. 2) It tells people if they're allowed to edit the page. Well hey, it's a wiki. 3) It can link to an image. Except it doesn't work with external images (we could just use something like Template:5e Image instead.) And I'll reiterate: the infobox is only used for 3.5e classes and nothing else, which is inconsistent.

I think the infobox should be stripped down to just information for indexing (i.e. short description) Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2015 (MDT)

This is something I've also been thinking about. Your proposal clearly is against the ratings system too, they're both sentiments I agree with - Though I think some sort of formalized user rate system like thing is good, our current system causes a lot of problems with people failing to do them properly, manual recalculation over jillions of pages as mentioned, and a huge rating bias to people who have the energy to do four paragraphs of explanations. Hence my sort of endorsement template thing I suggested sometime.
Anyway, to the main point of infoboxes, I'm all with shooting them off the map. Are other pages without infoboxes lacking something? I don't think so, but by all means do all the fancy indexing stuff. I guess I should've just said 'I agree'. --SgtLion (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2015 (MDT)
We could use them for the homebrew labels we were discussing a while back. Get rid of the current ratings system, though. --Salasay Δ 10:33, 8 March 2015 (MDT)
I think that everyone can agree that it is better without an antiquated rating system. We need to remove the ratings from all the list pages still. One thing that comes to mind is that maybe people would appreciate a separate improving, reviewing, or removing template that informs people about a general "to-do" list for the certain page that also provides a "status" update for the page in question. Do we have any good ideas of a name for this, or do we know if people will appreciate a template like this? --Green Dragon (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2015 (MDT)


I have made a template for disambiguation pages Template:dab, you can see it in action at places like Elf and Warrior. Some terms that used to take you directly to the 3.5e SRD now go to a dab page, but I'm fine with not having a 3.5e bias, correct links as you find them. If you have any suggestions for layout and so forth, please let me know. Marasmusine (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2015 (MDT)

This was super necessary, though I didn't know it 'til now. Awesomestuff, I'll just go sneak in a pathfinder homebrew section when that consists of more than like 2 things. --SgtLion (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (MDT)
That is really great! I was dreading trying to deal with disambiguation pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2015 (MDT)

Image policy[edit]

I am proposing a formal policy on image usage.

  • Unless otherwise noted, uploaded images use Wikipedia's image use policy:
  • Of particular note, the page for an uploaded image must describe the image's license, source and author; and fair-use rationale in the case of book/publication covers etc.
  • If a page uses an external link to display an image, it must be accompanied with the author's name and a link to the source. The source itself must be hosting the image respecting copyright. That is, if the image is under copyright, it must be the copyright holder's own webpage (e.g. deviantArt) or be displayed under a fair use rationale (e.g. other wikis).
  • Externally linked images should not be wider than 360 px - we must give consideration to readers using smaller screens (e.g. tablets and old laptops).
Thank god. --Salasay Δ 21:28, 15 September 2015 (MDT)
  • When more than one image is used, adequate spacing must be given between the images, or reading the page becomes a scroll-fest. I propose that no more than two images be used: one in the lead, and one at the next major section (e.g. campaign information in 3.5e classes; archetypes in 5e classes). Marasmusine (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2015 (MDT)
Perhaps one image per 1-2 average "screen heights." Some articles sort-of need more than two images. Having a decently defined ratio would make the policy more... terms. There is a term here. Anyway, somekind of ratio is better than a blanket number (eg what if the constitution of the USA had said that amendments required 9 states to vote instead of 3/4ths majority? Sorry, I'm taking civics.)--Salasay Δ 21:30, 15 September 2015 (MDT)
Agreed. There are exceptions like really long campaign supplements where more than two images could be of use. Otherwise, I'm all for this formal wazzo policy. --SgtLion (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2015 (MDT)
Number three on Featured Articles states that "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. The images should be relevant and high quality thumbnails sized 300px, 600px, or 750px for very short horizontal images." If we adopt any policy then I think that this one is the best one to use. It is partially derived from Wikipedia, and made to fit best onto D&D Wiki. Are there any problems with these sizes? Is there is a reason why we cannot just use this formatting and treatment as a site-wide policy? --Green Dragon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (MDT)
The problem is that editors largely like to use external images where we can't control the size. Uploaded images are preferable of course as thumbnails, and the size of thumbnails can be set in a user's settings. Marasmusine (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2015 (MDT)
This is why I deliberately did not cover that part of the discussion. Does anyone have a good workaround for a policy using external images? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2015 (MDT)
Sorry, I misread slightly, the day was full of background distractions. Those image sizes are okay (if the 600px refers to horizontal images). I don't mind going up to about 360px for portrait/square images. My push for policy (rather than just a style guide) is to settle some pages I've seen that have spammed large images, and to enforce attribution.
deviantArt produces its own thumbnails that can be linked to. Some (but not all) Flickr pictures provide a link to a reduced image. The only other solution is to contact the copyright holder and ask if we can upload it (which is feasible with individual artists, and extremely unlikely for artwork from games) Marasmusine (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2015 (MDT)
One question about all this: While I can appreciate the desire for exceptional resolution, why stress over uploaded image size or external image size when we can manipulate the size of the images on the pages they are displayed on, themselves? I do that all the time. It just takes a "300px" parameter, after all.
Secondly, I don't know that I am really comfortable with a hard-line policy on this matter. As a species, we've proven that we don't do well with foresight, and I think there is a host of potential rule quagmires that can occur because of this. What if someone wants a especially big image specifically for their main Campaign setting page? What if they want to stylize a page a particular way that requires a bigger image? What if we need a bigger image for a particular project somewhere down the line? What if people just prefer bigger images because DPI and resolution, and therefore quality, scale down but not up? Do we start making exceptions or do we just make our users chafe under iron-clad rules that can't be challenged? And if we are making exceptions for so many scenarios, why have the rule? Jwguy (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2015 (MST)
I feel that the size restrictions are good for Featured Article pages, but that we should not place a requirement on all pages for image sizes. This is for a number of reasons. One is that externally linked images cannot always be scaled and sized in D&D Wiki. Another reason is exactly what you mention above, that images are used for various purposes and making it so all pages need certain foresight is not always the best option.
In my opinion the authors and sources of the images is the best consideration of this policy requirement. Making it so things are better sourced and licensed is only going to make the quality of pages improve. I think that someone needs to go ahead and make this policy as a policy on Meta Pages#Policies so that we can see it written and dicsuss it further. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2015 (MST)
If I come across an inline image that fills most of the page and squishes the text into a thin column, then I'm removing that image. People can view the site on relatively low resolution screens (myself included sometimes I use an Asus netbook), and the images do not dynamically change size. The policy is just to forewarn people that I might do this. Marasmusine (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2015 (MST)
Regarding the edge cases Jwguy brings up, there's a Wikipedia policy that goes hand-in-hand with their image policy, [Ignore_all_rules]. Marasmusine (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2015 (MST)
Late reply, but I'd caution against that - it isn't right for any of us to rashly apply strict and forceful measures that impact our users based on whim and personal regard; I realize that you're filtering that into a 'but what about others like me' argument, but that's why we were having this discussion. Declaring your intent to do it anyways isn't the way to go about this, in my opinion.
As for the Ignore All Rules reference, that policy is contested to death because it is literally a paradox and because its simple message is interpreted in more ways than Nostradamus' predictions by both new editors and experienced ones, alike. In no case, however, has Ignore All Rules ever overruled consensus, or discussions attempting to reach consensus, or made the need for clarifying or updating rules any less so. --Jwguy (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2015 (MST)
I want to note somewhere on the public record that I have now discovered a method for resizing external images. I've edited Common.css and you can now resize an external image (even through other templates) by putting the image in <div class="externalimage-holder" style="width:50%;">myimagehere</div> tags. Adjusting the width attribute to any given percentage (of the viewing screen) or absolute pixel width with "width:360px". --SgtLion (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2018 (MST)
Thanks Sarg! This is a great help! ConcealedLight (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2018 (MST)
This is really great! It means that we may approve featured articles with external images. Consequently, lets start increasing the rate through the FA process. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2018 (MST)

Recent 5E Additions and Namespace violations[edit]

Anyone else notice a particularly large quantity of recent 5E Homebrew not conforming to our namespace standards? Is our form messed up or are the users just ignoring it, I wonder. --Jwguy (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2015 (MST)

I find that its a rarity for new users to use page identifiers, regardless of the edition. I should add clearer instructions next to the 5e "create new" links though. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2015 (MST)
Is it possible to make the button just tack on " (5e Variant Whatever)" to the end of whatever the author puts in the box? The main problem is that new users see the base text there, go "Oh, that's a placeholder." and delete the entire line. Most users won't read beyond the submit button, because, in their mind, they've already figured it out. (Even though they're wrong.) I know this, because that's exactly what I did when I first arrived here. Fixing that single stumbling block would make this site, (Or at least the 5e section of it, I haven't browsed the other parts much) significantly more intuitive. --Kydo (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2016 (MDT)
This is a syntax style that I have looked into but never figured out how to implement it. I wonder if we should make a Syntax To-Do list so we can keep these things together. Do we agree? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to get to a Saved file.[edit]

I had this base class file for 3.5e and I had saved it several times, but when I went on today, I couldn't find anywhere, including the Recent Changes pages. I want to figure out how to find it.--Meowmere14 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2015 (MST)

Are you sure you were hitting Save Page and not Show Preview? There's nothing in your list of edits. Marasmusine (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2015 (MST)
I'm pretty sure I was hitting Save and not Preveiw, but thanks anyway.--Meowmere14 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2015 (MST)
What is the name of the class? Perhaps we can find it. --Jwguy (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2015 (MST)


How exactly does one add a weapon or piece of armor to a specific category? For example, to Two-Handed Ranged Weapons or to Light Armor?

Hello, what edition is this for? Marasmusine (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2015 (MST)

Balancing Strategy[edit]

Why is this wiki's content so unbalanced and broken? Why? ErrorIam (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2016 (EST)

The items here are, as the sidebar indicates, user-generated and homebrew. Some may be based on a balancing play style that you are not familiar with, while others may simply be undone or not complete.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:25, 24 January 2016 (MST)
Please take improving, reviewing, or removing templates into consideration in your campaigns, and if you run across a page with broken and unbalanced content please mark it as such with these templates. Thanks! --Green Dragon (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (MST)

Monk Fighting Styles[edit]

I recently created a Monk Fighting style for the page in 3.5e ( but it did not show up on this page. Could someone tell me how to get it to show up here? I figured that, since I clicked on the "Add your own fighting style" link on the same page, it would just show up there on its own, but I am not very familiar with editing wiki pages, and it did not.

What's the name of your page? There's nothing in your edit history. Marasmusine (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (MDT)
It's right here:
It was missing some categories, you should see it listed now. Marasmusine (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2016 (MDT)

5e OGL[edit]

So, I'd like to start helping out with adding the 5e SRD, as that's kind of the big name item on the 5e to-do list right now, but I can't seem to find an easy way to access the work that's already been done. Instead, I have to search for it and choose it out of a list of results. Is there going to be a link for 5e OGL/SRD added to the sidebar at some point? Or will that only be done after the work is completed? --Kydo (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2016 (MDT)

This comment can be considered resolved, I presume. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see some intrepid creator convert the Dragon Magazine #216's Paths of Power article to 5th Edition.

Images again.[edit]

Please can we add a message to Special:Upload asking people not to upload images under copyright (without the holder's permission), and to provide correct attribution if uploading an image under a copyleft license? Marasmusine (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2016 (MDT)

Please tell me Im not an offender... --Kydo (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2016 (MDT)
I don't think so.... Marasmusine (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (MDT)
OK good. I was pretty sure all those pictures of dice were fair game, but I couldn't find anything for the barrel dice one. The website it came from was just... blank. But somehow Google found it! --Kydo (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2016 (MDT)
This comment can be considered resolved, I presume. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So, This Happened...[edit]

Also see Discussion:Homebrew 'n SRD Differentiation and other issues‎. --SgtLion (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2016 (MDT)

Sgt.lion has taken some initiative and posted this. Not sure if that's OK or whatnot, but I think it's pretty important. That topic is near the top of the subreddit page. It's huge. We are well known and we have a reputation- a bad one. Reading through almost a hundred user messages, here is what needs to be done:

  1. Separate SRD/OGL and Homebrew into separate namespaces. Simply put, yes, people are too stupid to read the top-left corner of the site. Newbies do not know what SRD or homebrew mean, and typically assume a wiki bearing the game's name belongs to the developers.
  2. Update the look. People think this site looks old and dreary. Most people think SRD and Homebrew content should have a completely different theme. Specifically, the top of the page should declare, bright and bold, before the title of the page, whether it is official or not.
  3. Add a review system which does not require editing the page. This probably only pops up so much because these are redditors, and they like the reddit system of gold floating to the top.
  4. We need to expand the community. If we want our quality standards and tools to mean anything, there needs to be enough users using them for it to be apparent.
  5. Update the search function to optionally preclude homebrew or SRD, depending on what you're looking for.
  6. Pages should have a "last edited" date displayed at the top.

Also, no, nobody wants to help us do it. XD --Kydo (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2016 (MDT)

Also, someone mentioned that there used to be a much larger community here, but most of them left after a big argument of some sort. I've never heard or seen anything of this. Is it a load, or did something awful actually happen? If it did, juicy details please. :) --Kydo (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
Yeah, perhaps this is a better place to discuss it, thanks for writin' about it. I think you've summarised the main points well. I'd like to emphasize the quality that a proper rating system could bring.
Oh, the argument thing is true. The arguments are throughout Main Page and User talk archives. The main argument was originally over licensing and quality control, a lot of users said authors should have complete control over their articles (including the ability to delete them), and others disagreed because content is released under GNU FDL. I think there were other disagreements over quality control and the like. The users went off and formed (or some similar one, I forget).
It's all a mish-mash at the moment, but I think most things brought up there are good points we should tackle over time. --SgtLion (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
Also, since there's apparently concern here, apologies for making a big-ass thing. As I said elsewhere: I didn't say anything because I was honestly was expecting this thread to reach like 10 votes and then get deleted for off-topic. I'm hella surprised by the big response, but that doesn't make the feedback any less valid. Sorry for not anticipating this <3 --SgtLion (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
I am only for a review score system that resets itself when the page is edited. The manual review system we had for 3.5e didn't work, in my opinion, because you rate a page 2/5 for flavor (for example) and that remained in the average score forever, no matter how well the page is improved. Marasmusine (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
I am of the opinion that no review system will ever work unless we can build up a strong, thriving, active community. Inspectors make quality. We have, like, 20 inspectors- and we're all producers too. Until we have lots of eyes, like the Dwarf Fortress wiki, a rating system will fail for all the same reasons that our current reviewing templates fail. The greatest tools in the world are useless without hands to use them. Really, that is the crux of the problem. We can not have a strong community until we make clear, loud, bold, obvious, outrageously unmistakable distinction between SRD and homebrew. Most of the people in that topic just hate homebrew in general, or hate the idea of collaborative homebrew projects. We can't do anything for those assholes. But we can do something for DMs who regularly have to field newbies who think our content is official. I think that making that distinction very strong and clear, on its own, will grow the community significantly. --Kydo (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
Oh, one more thing they brought up repeatedly: they all want curation. I think most of those people think of homebrew as being inextricably tied to its author, not a collaborative creation, so they think a wiki is an inappropriate medium, and the only way for it to work is to impose strict membership rules and restricted editing authorities to enforce that kind of segregation. However, even people who like the idea of collaborative homebrew seem to want some sort of official review process. Perhaps we should consider, once there are many more active users, actually creating a dedicated review team and some way of creating a curated "gallery" of works that have been accepted for quality in the state they were at the time of review. Perhaps that's what the magazine could become? --Kydo (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
There are plenty of solutions to consider when we have a bigger strong, core userbase. Things we should be looking at now are what we can achieve now. I do like the magazine, we should publicize that more, if we don't already. --SgtLion (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
Well people keep calling for quality review and curation. That's exactly what the zine is. Maybe it should have a more prominent home on the site, rather than basically being a ghost, hidden in talk page links, back-passages and watch page announcements. We should try and use that to draw positive attention to the community. The opportunity to get your work noticed enough to be published, and the opportunity to play an active role in producing a product with a large audience could do wonders for us. Not only that, but it shows what this community is good at: excellent homebrew content through collaboration. Pages that have been included in the zine should have a template/category on them, like a banner or something, announcing which issue they appeared in and the date of. That way, even if people have edited the page since, a user could open the history and see what it looked like back then, or just go download the issue in question. This could also potentially allow people to search for only zine-published content by searching for a section of regular text from the banner. --Kydo (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (MDT)
Would adding Community Projects to 5e Homebrew, 4e Homebrew, 3.5e Homebrew, etc with D&D Wiki Magazine too help users find it? --Green Dragon (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I support that idea, GD. It should help to get community projects more visible (though I thought they were already linked). SgtLion and I were also discussing the other day, an idea you maybe saw, to create, under community projects, a page where people can link curated content lists of content they like? I was thinking they make it under a user subpage and then link to it on 5e Curated Content Guides (for example), which is then linked to from the community projects portal. I'm not sure how well it'd actually work, but your idea made me think we could link to the guides from the respective homebrew pages? I think that if trustworthy/well-respected users did that, it'd help solve the issue of curation without limiting the wiki in any way, but that requires good users actually doing that. Thoughts?--GamerAim (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


I think the discussions page should be linked from the front page. The current means of accessing it feels kind of backwards and counterintuitive- like it's buried in the website. Making it more prominent would make it more useful to new users, the people who would likely need it most, and more convenient for regular users to access. --Kydo (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2016 (MDT)

Discussions are not the main scope of D&D Wiki. Personally, I don't feel its necessary since its content does not match any of the main edition's foci. A link to the D&D Wiki Magazine, though, I think is much more appropriate. Maybe if discussions was split into section that are 1) answered, 2) hot topic, 3) new or something then we could link to it from here. Right now its not used by lots of people since I think that people give up trying to understand it. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (MDT)
I agree on all above points. It's not exactly the most intuitive of interfaces, that's for sure, and newbies can really screw up the legibility of a conversation. --Kydo (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2016 (MDT)
I would actually like to include good discussions in the magazine (just like the "forum" in Dragon magazine back in the day) Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2016 (MDT)

dandwiki on FB[edit]

Apparently the wiki has an FB page located here. FB pages kind of only work if you tell people about them. A lot. Perhaps we should add it somewhere on the front page? --Kydo (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2016 (MDT)

Wuh, how long as that been there? Who's been posting on it?! :) Marasmusine (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
It has been around for ages, since before I became an admin. I've mentioned as such in several places, here and there, including my RfA. I've been the sole administrator for it ever since I was suddenly added to it and made an administrator by Hooper, unbeknownst to me (I found out when I logged in several days afterwards). In any case, I added Kydo and SgtLion to editor slots so they can post there, per the recent discussion (although Kydo keeps liking his own posts for some reason ;P).
So, I've told people; I suppose it just never really caught on, nor was it ever really my project either. In any case, a badge would be fine if that's something you guys would like. --Jwguy (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
I've been liking and sharing my posts so that all of my FB contacts will see it. I have many gamer friends. They haven't bit the hook yet, but they will eventually. FB marketing relies on the "sociopath with a cold" method of word-of-mouth marketing. It isn't enough to just post something, you have to spread it around. A lot. My objective is to just keep the page noisy. I'll check at some point every day, and if nobody else does anything for ~20hrs, I'll post one of the 287 relevant things I found on the internet yesterday. I'm trying to make sure every post I make is on-topic with the homebrew focus of this community, both so people know what we're about, and to Differentiate out page from groups like D&DM Memes, I Love Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons, and Dungeons & Dragons Memes. We would fit somewhere in the middle of all of those: practical and useful, but unofficial and fun. --Kydo (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
Also, and I'm hoping nobody would assume I'd do otherwise, but I have explicitly decided to never use our FB page to advertise my personal blog or youtube channel. Nor do I plan to use it to advertise my own contributions to the site. That would be irresponsible and selfish of me. (Now, shamelessly plugging my own work everywhere elsewise? Not above that!) Oh look we got three likes in just 2 days! --Kydo (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
It's existed at least since 2011, that's the earliest image in the gallery. --Kydo (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
That is neat that someone took the initiative to get that FB page working. I don't think a Main Page link is quite appropriate, but what if someone adds it to MediaWiki:Sidebar.css at the end of the "miscellaneous" box as "like D&D Wiki on FaceBook!", so long as it is kept active? --Green Dragon (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
Wait, what? We can edit that? I thought that was part of Blue Dragon's lair! --Kydo (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (MDT)
Oh yes. I made that ages ago and gave ownership over. It could be a lot more useful!   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:48, 2 November 2016 (MDT)


Hello everyone, I would just like to make everyone aware that I have moved the "holy" themed magazine to issue 5, and issue 4 is now "oozes & slimes". I know I know, should have done this a month ago to time it for Halloween. But I do aim to have this one published before the end of the year. Please head to D&D Wiki Magazine/Issue 4 to submit articles (either your own work or what's already on the wiki), assess what's already there, come up with trinkets, traps, treasures (all the Ts basically) and so on. Thanks, 03:26, 1 November 2016 (MDT)

Russian spam bots[edit]

So, my inbox has been full of russian spam bot edits to the main page talk. What is going on? Why russian? We don't have any russian pages, as far as I know. Why only this page? Wouldn't it make more sense to spam pages with lower traffic so it's more likely to last? What the heck are they even advertising? Why on a D&D site? The whole strategy seems faulty. --Kydo (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2017 (MST)

Is there anyway to stop them permanently? There've been at least five different IP's doing the same spamming the same stuff in the past few days. "Ban one, another shall take it's place" indeed. --Salasay Δ 10:58, 16 January 2017 (MST)
In my experience, there'll be a brief spambot flurry of different IPs and then they go away. Marasmusine (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2017 (MST)
Its jumping across computers and browsers. Check user
   (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 16:41 . . (Talk | block) (Blocked) (Заработок через интернет официальное трудоустройство.)
           IP:   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/47.0.2526.111 Safari/537.36
   (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 14:02 . . (Talk | block) (Blocked) (Мы платим за лайки! - Оплата по требованию!)
           IP:   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/48.0.2564.116 Safari/537.36
   (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 13:05 . . (Talk | block) (Blocked) (Заработок в интернете официальное трудоустройство.)
           IP:   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0
   (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 12:37 . . (Talk | block) (Blocked) (Мы платим за лайки! - Оплата сдельная!)
           IP:   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/47.0.2526.111 Safari/537.36
   (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 12:08 . . (Talk | block) (Blocked) (Официальное трудоустройство, работа через интернет.)
           IP:   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/47.0.2526.111 Safari/537.36
Putting in the IP spams Check user gives a common CIDR of >2147483648
Find common range and affected IP addresses for a list of IP addresses
Common CIDR: >2147483648 
w:Classless Inter-Domain Routing Mentions that this has to do with User:, so I blocked it. If this has repucusions beyond what I am doing please let me know so I can correct it! This may not work, but I feel that its worth a try. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2017 (MST)

Doom Campaign[edit]

This is an open invitation for anyone to join my short Doom campaign, at Doom (5e Campaign Setting)/Moons Of Saturn. Hoping to start this by the end of the day. Let me know, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2017 (MST)

Homebrew Race LA/ECL list[edit]

Hi. I created a race, and filled out everything on the list, but it isn't showing up in the ECL or LA lists for 3.5e homebrew races. I specifically filled out the top portion that related to that, and it still isn't showing up. Help with this would be great. Thanks! Here's the link:[[1]]

Suggestions to improve D&D Wiki[edit]

I spotted a Reddit thread asking for suggestions to improve D&D Wiki and I'd like to offer some suggestions.

  • Since this wiki focuses entirely on homebrew content, it could change its name to D&D Homebrew Wiki. This would help solve the problem of players mistaking homebrew for official content.
  • Articles with the same name as official content (e.g. Favored Soul (5e Class) should have an infobox at the top notifying users that this is not official content, to prevent confusion.
  • It may be worth importing OGL content to an OGL namespace. There used to be a site called the Grand OGL Wiki, but it's gone. Some good OGL content is D20 third-party books, and the old netbooks (e.g. Netbook of Feats, Netbook of Spells). It'd be nice to archive these because most of it is trapped in out-of-print books, old PDF/RTF documents that don't show up on Google well, or sites that have gone down.
  • Write guides for each content type (race, class, feat, etc) and link to the relevant guide in the stub infobox for each content type to ensure editors see it. D&D balance is tricky but it will improve quality and consistency if all editors have the same basic understanding of balance and standards.
     I'm glad someone has the courtesy and kindness to speak directly and politely! Welcome to the wiki! I'll just reply to each of your points in order.
  •      Though the focus is homebrew, it is not limited to such. The wiki also carries OGL transcriptions and also has a significant community element. So, no, calling it the D&D Homebrew Wiki would not actually be accurate. We simply have a LOT of homebrew. This community evolved directly out of the original WotC forums, and exists primarily to serve fans of D&D within the limits of copyright law. The name is appropriate enough as it is, and follows the trend of other similar wiki communities. Young and ignorant users who cannot distinguish the wiki software from its encyclopedic use are simply in error. It was an error I made myself, even having seen and used non-encyclopedic wikis myself! Wikipedia and wikia have drastically skewed (and limited) public perception of what this software can achieve.
  •      Generally, this is already done. However, nobody could ever hope to patrol every single thing made by every single user. Occasionally, users misname things or fail to include the (Variant) identifier. We fix it as we see it, but nobody has the time to set up constant vigil. There's just too much going on. Believe me, I tried. It severely interfered with my real life.
  •      There are multiple namespaces for OGL content, depending on their nature. SRDspaces are for OGL transcription of SRD documents, for example. It is also possible to distribute original content for the D&D game under the OGL license through this wiki! I can't force people to read the "5e SRD:" header at the top of their page. Nor can I force new users to read anything in the help portal.
  •      We are working on that. Some are well developed, like the guides for 5e races, monsters, and backgrounds. Some, though extant, are basically the incomplete works of just one user and have otherwise not been touched since, like the 3.5e and 5e class guides. We can talk about doing things all day, but when you actually get down to doing it, you need to have multiple people who are willing to write the dang thing! Some content, like spells, are so abstract that a guide for them would likely turn out to be a wishy-washy discussion of design philosophy. Other content is so limited and simple, like armor, that the guide would effectively be a stub even at completion.
     I appreciate your input. We need people who care about the project and are willing to put in the time to make this thing great for everyone. If you're interested in helping with any of the community's initiatives, I encourage you to join in! There's always work to be done, and the best part is that it's usually fun! --Kydo (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the homebrew is that often people search for an official race, class, etc on Google and end up looking at something homebrew from here that has the same name as an official race, class, etc, not realizing that they're even on this specific site. I know I've done this several times, and it does get irritating. I know an idea that was discussed previously was putting a "homebrew" template at the top of every homebrew page that would only be removable by an administrator. Last I heard, Blue Dragon and SgtLion were working behind the scenes on implementing that? Geodude671 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Since you guys have the best reference wiki for D&D, I wouldn't suggest making it concentrate on homebrew material, even though I had suggested it. Leave that to sites focusing less on reference material which are probably better for homebrew content. At least, that is one way to differentiate the two site which have nearly identical content. --Cedric, the Bard

I would also like to ask: should we include encyclopedic pages about D&D topics? (Nerull, for example). I know a lot of this stuff is on Wikipedia (but in most cases shouldn't be, due to their policies on notability and use of secondary sources for verification). Marasmusine (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant about Wikipedia. D&D is an entirely different set of reference and their content probably shouldn't be on there, but moved over here. Encyclopedias are supposed to be about reality, not fantasy. --Cedric, the Bard

looking to build a ninja[edit]

Hi all i am looking to build a ninja in dnd 5e the last time i played was 3.5 and need help and ideas to build the ninja

Try a shadow monk. Geodude671 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Using this wiki as a staging area for curating the best content for new versions[edit]

I propose dandwiki become a staging area for curating the best content for new releases of D&D. That means, instead of obfuscated page titles ("Druid SRD"), generic titles be used ("Druid") so that the best ideas from any and all versions curate into the best possible ideas for the particular topic -- just like Wikipedia. I think you guys are a very great resource and should merge content with externs to make the absolute best resource for those in D&D. There're roughly 100 users on various facebook groups that are (or would be) interested.

There's no reason for multiple cleric pages, for example, except to keep older (obsoleted) versions around for sake of reference and possibly missed bits of value that weren't integrated into the mainline (in which case they could be labeled "Cleric v3.5"). I know it sounds the same, but there's a big different. The best ideas always rise to the top if you use generic page titles. Cedric (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There's multiple cleric pages because each one is different, and none of them are obsolete. That page alone links to a variety of SRD and homebrew base classes, spells, domains, etc. for multiple versions of D&D. Pages already have version identifiers for both the SRD and homebrew classes. What sort of "best possible ideas" have you come up with for druids? Maybe I can help you find where to put your ideas on the wiki. But this isn't Wikipedia, for the record: wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for facts, and those facts require a source (not just a bunch of good ideas), and while we sorta have something similar for the SRD (and all content must adhere to rules that can be referenced somewhere) and have similar policies for some things, things posted here don't have to be supported by reliable sources (for the obvious reasons that magic and dragons aren't real). Wikipedia also has disambiguation pages like cleric instead of lumping everything with the same name together, for instance their disambiguation page on disambiguation :P.
So, for druids, like Mages, they get XP from effective magic usage, not slaying (which is the bread and butter for fighters only). For nearly every class but fighters, XP is gained by using their particular skillset -- in whatever context. Perhaps they will build a bridge across a chasm (in the case of a wizard) or excavate a tunnel under a mountain (in the case of Druids). Further, mages can write scrolls, and druids can make potions. They can sell this things to shops to get money from commoners. Do you see yet? These things were all written (albeit in a sloppy fashion) on the hackerspaces wiki and provide major improvements over existing class structure.
Another example: Clerics don't have spell casting as it goes against the gods to use their powers. Instead they can heal and through healing they get XP (not by spells). They earn 100XP per 1HP healed in any creature or player. They also have extra-planar protective fields for all their allies, whether its a dog 60 miles away or their player-friends in their own party.
I hope that answers why we have multiple cleric pages. We like to think D&D Wiki is already a staging area for curating the best content for all releases of D&D (while the sidebar only lists 5e, 4e, 3.5e and 2.5e, I don't think there'd be an issue with posting homebrew for other editions aside from not being on the sidebar), but feel free to elaborate on how we can improve the wiki :)--GamerAim (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a wiki based on the game Dungeons and Dragons. It is not some reference fantasy wiki. You are proposing a pure fantasy structure which is implemented by metaphorically tearing everything down. We welcome your contribution in your user space or as a variant rule, and if you gain support then working with a purely fantasy structure will be discussed. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


I have improved the Main Page's layout to be based on the content text, to be better for smaller screens with the columns, and I updated the links. Any input is appreciated. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should put links to the discussion forum and help portal as well. Aside from that, it seems fine, and if it's better on mobile, all the better :)--GamerAim (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your observation. Administration should be changed to something else, like Pages for Users, with the Help Portal coming first and then Meta Pages. You may go ahead and make this change. Where should we put the discussions in your opinion? --Green Dragon (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the DPLs on the main page, so homebrew shouldn't count SRD pages and OGC should only count 3.5e OGC pages.--GamerAim (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks great! Very happy with this. --Kydo (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Should we look into a new logo? IIRC, the current one uses a 4e-inspired typeface, but maybe someone could make a similar 5e-inspired logo? I didn't see anything on this talk page discussing it, so I hope it hasn't been brought up before (especially if the idea was shot down). I'm not much of an artist, so anything I made would be a simple Draconis font logo, but perhaps another user is better at art and wants to be immortalized on D&D Wiki? :)--GamerAim (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I do vaguely remember seeing this discussed before, but I can't find it. --Geodude671 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this has never been discussed (between 4e and 5e) before. I think that it's a great idea! We need some examples though. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Something similar to File:D&D Wiki.png. If someone could make a better, more artistic rendition of that, it'd be great! If no one can, I think I could do some work to make a higher-resolution, better-looking one. I know Kydo does art, but I know he's busy and IDK if he does calligraphy. I personally like the cleaner look of the 5e typeface and think it'd go well alongside the new banners and SRD stylings to show off a "new" D&D Wiki.--GamerAim (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to push that as the new logo, unless anyone has a better one or suggestions for simple improvements of the one I made. I'd need to remake it as higher-resolution with a transparent background. It's simple, but the 5e typeface is intentionally simple. It's new, sleek and to the point, whereas 4e was kind of large, bold and filled with unnecessary frills and a sort of gamey vibe to it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2017 (MDT)
I don't like how the text is scaled vertically. I am worried that this logo may not stand out from the background (maybe an outline would help?) I can try some things with it to. Could you email it to me in a workable extension?.
I also agree that a fitting logo for 5e would be great. When you rework yours, try to use some of my ideas above. Once its complete, then we can reach a consensus. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2017 (MDT)
here and here :) There's actually of empty logo space, it seems, so a new squarer-fitting one should actually fill up more room, but you can try and do whatever. As well, the font I used is Draconis.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2017 (MDT)
I like the old one personally. I think it'll look cooler with the current wiki color scheme/layout. Maybe if we went all black-and-dark-colors the new logo would be good.--Dr Roach (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2017 (MDT)
I understand the want for a new logo, more 5e style but the current logo captures D&D for me. The "&" sign has a draconic form with a flame like hue in the middle. The wiki's dual tones give a fire appearance too. If it has to change, and the person has the talent, keeping those elements would be a cool thing. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2017 (MDT)
The dragon ampersand is a registered trademark of WotC (I think). We can't use it for our logo. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 11:28, 10 September 2017 (MDT)
That's a sad thing to hear, thanks for the enlightenment though. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2017 (MDT)
To be fair, we use a lot of registered trademarks of WotC on this site, so I don't think that carries a lot of weight.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2017 (MDT)
Actually, I thought the original logo was v5 inspired, so I don't think you need to change it. The only thing is that the logo has some WotC branding (the colors are exactly v5, and the font is distinctly WofC) which could put you in trademark dispute if you aren't getting a nod from them about the wiki. --Cedric, the Bard

Yes, THE dragon ampersand is a copyrighted and trademarked logo... but not ALL dragon ampersands. As long as it is a unique design, we can actually trademark our own drampersand. I like the idea of going with a logo that is simple, timeless, and captures the spirit of the earlier editions. As clumsy as they were, there's just something charming and ageless about the aesthetics of those first couple of editions. That's why I used the same font as the basic set cover page for the Help Portal image. Simple logos do better than ornate ones, because simplicity lends itself to being iconic. It should also be aesthetically pleasing and clear in meaning. If you can achieve all of the above, it becomes a highly iconic image due to the elegance by which the message is conveyed. --Kydo (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2017 (MDT)

I tried to make a simple revision, using the horizontal line in the current logo as a dragon representation from a previous logo, a mix of colors and fonts from the current logo, and the one in this discussion. Here: File:Logo revision1.png. What do people think? Are their glaring problems with it right now, and should be start a vote or is their consensus? --Green Dragon (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2017 (MDT)
I think it looks fine, though I urge everyone to look at the thumbnails for an accurate representation of the image. The bar looks a little bit out of place, but I guess it's needed to maintain vertical height? The gradient is pleasing, but the solid color of "WIKI" looks off, though I can't tell if it's the color or lack of gradient. I also think the (mostly) single-color is kind of off-putting, but again maybe that's just the lack of gradient on "WIKI" :/
Overall, I wouldn't mind having it as our logo and don't wish to demean it (it's better than mine), but if you made any variants, I'd be interested in seeing them :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (MDT)
What are the thoughts on File:Logo revision1.png and File:Logo revision2.png now? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2017 (MDT)
I like the gradient, the light gray and the dark gray. All are very appealing to me. But that dragon really only works on the gradient one, IMO.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2017 (MDT)
I tried to make the gradient revision more interesting, File:Logo revision3.png. Are we all fine to vote on the logo, or will there be more submissions or consensus? --Green Dragon (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (MDT)
I'm not sure I notice a difference in the thumbnail, but it still looks fine :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2017 (MDT)
We will implement File:Logo revision3.png, unless anyone objects. I'll give it a little bit more time just in case there is a discussion to implement it in a different manner (e.g. votes). Of course, we can always discuss this later and change it if necessary! --Green Dragon (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2017 (MDT)
The new logo was looking a little weird for me for a bit, but it seems to be normal now. SirSprinkles (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (MDT)
For the record, using a different dragon ampersand actually wouldn't guarantee protection, because you didn't originate the idea (although the Chinese get by using near-identical logos all the time). You content for SRD is superb, I suggest either working with WotC to become an official wiki for them and omitting any current version SRD material, or changing the logo altogether (like you seem to have now) so that no one thinks that you are a sanctioned WotC site. --Cedric, the Bard.

I've done a slight touch up on the logo, just somewhat vectorising 'n smoothing out the dragon and restoring the red lettering behind the dragon. I suggest it as a minor but straight improvement, but I leave the judgment in the hands of others.

This being said and done, I don't feel totally convinced by the new logo. It's not like I have a big issue with it, but our old logo was firey with striking textures, whereas this is smarter and neater, but also doesn't feel right to me. I'm unfamiliar with 5e typeface, so could be just that. Maybe even some minor unspecified change would satisfy me, I am thoroughly unsure. Either way, it is currently not my favourite. Perhaps if we had a submission or two more to put on the table, I'd vote.. for a vote. --SgtLion (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

It's your boi. That one guy with tool proficiency in Digital Content Creation, should of taken thieves tools but oh well. Anyways, GA said this isn't trash and I should ask the great dragon for his opinion, so here are some colour swatches. File:D&D Wiki Logo - Colour Swatch.png Also, everything there there is made by me, including the font(those beautiful serifs) and my precious dragon and I give D&D Wiki those perms to use and what not. If you want a instant response from me the discord then the tavern is your best bet. ConcealedLight (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2017 (MDT)

I think they look pretty good. SirSprinkles (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2017 (MDT)
SgtLion's comments resonant with me a lot. I am very happy to see ConcealedLight's submission/idea, it has that flavor the old icon had. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2017 (MDT)
I too am a fan of ConcealedLight's fancy swatch of designs. Good job CL! I'm not sure what they'd look like with gradients/light bricky textures like we have now, but that might possibly make for a fun mixture. I dig 'em. --SgtLion (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2017 (MDT)
I like these as well, they are understandable, and catchy. Do you want me to try to make a gradient out of the colors like I did before? Is there an exemplar swatch that is better than the others? --Green Dragon (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2017 (MDT)
Thanks for the comments everyone. I can make gradient version of all of these if you want GD. I put only the D&D part of the full image here so I could see which color or shade you guys were leaning towards and how you wanted the dragon to be. If you want a single color like 4. Dual colours like 3, 5 and 6 or the three coloured ones like 7, 8 and 9. After colours we can do textures, gradients and such. ConcealedLight (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2017 (MDT)
I choose number 8 (bottom center). It looks sharp, and the multiple colors give it a better contrast. I'm ready for the next stage, unless someone else also wants to pick one. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
There is a small issue that I discovered recently actually. I did a site test here File:D&D Wiki Logo - Site Test.png. While it shouldn't be that pixelated on the final one the primary worry for me is that due to the way I designed the dragon the lovely details I agonized over won't be shown and don't come out too nice as seen. So I may have to redo the design to simplify the spacings on it. When I do I'll upload it so please watch the image page. Other then me fixing that up what other texture/gradiant swatches you want me to pull together? ConcealedLight (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
I was leaning towards similar dual/tri color images for the contrasting colots like Green Dragon said. But, I like the light red of 2&3 and the darkenss of the "&"/dragon symbol on 8&9. Or, swap the red tones of these so that the Ds are dark red and the "&" lighter red. Either way, in my head those two colors would contrast more which I think would be good. Just my opinion. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
For what it's worth, I think it still looks lovely at that size :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
Updated the swatch with BigShotFancyMan's ideas, File:D&D Wiki Logo - Colour Swatch.png. Also, GD I'm not an expert with web dev stuff or how the site is configured but I think we can display the logo as a vector file, so no matter the size it will always look crisp. This will solve the issue I was talking about previously and I'll give you the raw file when we are finished. ConcealedLight (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
I guess I was thinking lighter red Ds would be more like options 2&3's Ds. My vote is for any of them bottom right 4 options (I think 8,9,11,12) Sidenote:the thumbnail makes an awesome background, minus the black Ds BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
A vector format (svg) would be great and would definitely work for the site. — Blue Dragon (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
The mystic blue dragon makes his appearance. Here, File:D&D Wiki Logo - Test.svg is a test SVG file that I've pulled together so it's optimized for web pages. You can use it for testing to see if it'll work out or as a placeholder. ConcealedLight (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (MDT)
That is exactly what I was picturing ConcealedLight! Thanks for the example, can't wait to see what others would like. (the svg file has mine) BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (MDT)
I like that dragon, too. Can you try to include a gradient with one that uses three colors? --Green Dragon (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2017 (MDT)
I've updated the swatchesFile:D&D Wiki Logo - Colour Swatch.png. The first one is with a gradient on the lettering only. The second is using a gradient on the dragon solely for improved transition between the colours. The third is too much imo but I figured I'd include it in case someone wanted a visual of a more heavy use of gradient. I'd say the second is the best one here. Also, in case the image is catched here is a puush. [2]. ConcealedLight (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2017 (MDT)
Great! I agree that the second one is best. Can you please upload just that swatch as the new logo? Unless someone likes the current logo more (I don't), then we will change it to the second gradient swatch. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2017 (MDT)
I would certainly like to see that new logo in situ, for now. Seems like a solid improvement at the moment. --SgtLion (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2017 (MDT)
Cool, if you'd like anything changed or tweaked you know where to find me. File:D&D_Wiki_Logo_-_final_image.png File:D&D Wiki Logo - final.svg ConcealedLight (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2017 (MDT)
It looks excellent --Kydo (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2017 (MST)

New Sidebar?[edit]

As a compromise, I am proposing a new sidebar that is restructured to provide access to all the major nexus points of the site (homebrew, SRD, OGC) without the need for obfuscation or inoperable sub-subheadings. Anyone is welcome to edit it my user subpage if they have an idea on how to change it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (MDT)

Personally I like your proposed format a little better. Either way, I think it would be improved if the capitalization was a bit more consistent. (Either "Recent changes" needs both words capitalized; or Main Page, Help Portal, etc need to follow its example and drop the capitalization on the second word.) - Guy (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2017 (MDT)
I also like your proposed format better. Wait a few days before changing the sidebar in case anyone wants to add something to the discussion. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2017 (MDT)
Huh, when I heard 'new sidebar', I somehow thought I was not going to like it. I think this proposed change makes more sense. I'm all for it. -- 01:29, 8 September 2017 (MDT) How the hell did that happen? I'm logged in... --SgtLion (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2017 (MDT)
Proposed format looks much better. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2017 (MDT)
That's over 3 days with 5 in favor, 0 against. I'm going forward with it :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (MDT)
Will the site be down while this takes place? ETA on completion? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2017 (MDT)
It should already be up, but sometimes it takes a day or two to display for some people, due to caching. Just wait it out and I'm sure it'll update on it own :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2017 (MDT)
Even though I did not vote on this, I have to say that I like the new sidebar better than the last one. I believe you can find everything you need to find better on it and would like to retroactively vote for its implementation.--Blobby383b (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2017 (MDT)
Excellent. Far more organized according to what users are actually looking for. I'm happy this was done. --Kydo (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (MDT)
Very good. I'm glad the capitalization is consistent now, too. - Guy (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2017 (MDT)

New Background[edit]

It's just a year of news, isn't it? After some research, SgtLion, ConcealedLight and I were unable to find a definitive source for the background image, except that it's likely under copyright from Wizards of the Coast. So, unless someone can show that we're not breaking copyright law, I think we should look into a new background. Even then, I think we should look into it. ConcealedLight has offered to try his hand at a new background if this is something we're open to. Thoughts? :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2017 (MDT)

Yup I was able to find out it comes from the equipment section of the phb for 3.5 revised. Also, this came up because I think the 5e Homebrew banner is out of place against the website theme and threw this File:5e_SRD_Banner1.png together over a few days using the same banner specifications and the sites current background. However, this brought up the issue we are discussing now. ConcealedLight (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (MDT)
The jarring contrast between the banner and the theme is to intentionally draw attention to it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2017 (MDT)
Though I'm open to more opinions, I'd also agree that the current homebrew banner's strength is the contrast from the site's colour scheme - It leaves it really noticeable, but not intrusive. I'm personally a fan - Plus the space/castle themes come with nice metaphors. If we're possibly changing the background anyhow, it may be better to see how that changes things, first. --SgtLion (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2017 (MDT)
I find that a new background is appropriate. The current image was offered by Sledged, but I do not recall its contextual usage rights (likely that the end result is a representation at best and not the complete image). What image recommendations do we have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Green Dragon (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.
From a design perspective, I believe that D&D Wiki has a distinct theme, look and feel to it that sets it apart from competitors and makes it memorable to its viewers. When updating things across the site whether it be something small like a banner or something significant like the site's background we should keep in mind that consistency in theme(colour, look and feel) as well as image quality(using vector art and avoiding low-resolution images). With that in mind, I believe we should base whatever is created off the current background with the goal of maintaining the site theme and as such one of the most apparent options would be to create our own version of this old paper type effect with or without drawings. ConcealedLight (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2017 (MDT)
I agree with you. Would you take a stab at making an appropriate background? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2017 (MDT)
Sure, I see myself as being more a vector kind guy rather than pixel but I'll take a stab at it. If yourself or any other users have ideas or changes that you think we could use this as an opportunity to implement then please feel free to share. ConcealedLight (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2017 (MDT)
Make it exactly how you imagine it, as a vector. If I have any pre-advice, I would have tried to make it work already. I don't know what would work for this phase. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2017 (MDT)
Hey, so I know it has been a while and I'm not really sure about what to change it to. However, I think we could update the current image to the following image since it replaces the ugly cut in the page with an intent type line that makes it look like a book. Thoughts? Media:sitebg-book.jpeg --ConcealedLightThis user is an administrator (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (MDT)
I agree, but there are more things too. Since SgtLion has backend access now, maybe he could improve the MediaWiki in some ways. I'll alert him of this discussion. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2018 (MDT)
Goshdarnit, I've supposedly successfully replied to this twice now. I'm happy to do whatever I can to assist - I do think the proposed background image would be a minor improvement, I'll put it in, and perhaps we should see if vertically tiling it is worthwhile, too?
I should note that I naively hope to upgrade our MediaWiki version in the coming month, and this might require some code updates to our skin anyways. --SgtLion (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
Oh cool! What wiki syntax code updates are we looking at? --Green Dragon (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (MDT)
There shouldn't be any changes that are hugely major, it should enable some handy things like Page status indicators being in the title bar (or wherever the skin dictates) and disappointingly late, it does add a nice in-built slideshow mode, Among many many other fixes are improved algorithms for the Special page lists, a different (and better~) manager for logins and passwords, pretty customisation of emails sent through dandwiki, extended patrol functions, new #time parser functions, meaningfully improved effectiveness of user blocks and improved response time of some pages. But theory goes that what one needs to do day-to-day isn't really affected.
For the long, boring version, the full release notes are a combination of 1.25, 1.26, 1.27, 1.28, 1.29 and 1.30. --SgtLion (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2018 (MDT)
Great, that sounds rather harmless. Will there be improved mobile functions, or not? --Green Dragon (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2018 (MDT)
The mobile integration is largely built into the skin CSS. The MediaWiki update might change how some things are display, so it makes sense to do that first, then ye skin changes for mobiles. We can still do backgrounds and the like with ease in the meantime, though. --SgtLion (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2018 (MDT)

100,000 pages![edit]

Whoop whoop! As of today, D&D Wiki has over 100,000 pages! That's pretty craaaazy. Admittedly, only about half of those are 'content' pages, but this is still a big, amazing milestone. Go go y'all. --SgtLion (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2017 (MST)

Correct Title Format[edit]

Some users and I were discussing the correct way to mark a page as a Variant and came to the conclusion that there should be a format they should follow. For example, if you go to the 5e_Races page you'll find a number of pages marked with a variety of different ways such as:

  • Human, Variant (5e Race)
  • Human Variant (5e Race)
  • Human variant (5e Race)
  • Human (Variant) (5e Race)
  • Human, (Variant) (5e Race)
  • Human (variant) (5e Race)

I believe the second or first one would be best and then to mark another variant it would be II and then III and so on rather then what is happening here with the Warforged, 3rd Variant (5e Race). --ConcealedLight (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2018 (MST)

First of all, I think the first one is proper. Second of all, I think we should be encouraging users to either consolidate pages (how many variants are actually viable, unique articles?) or make them somehow more unique. I simply doubt the need for so many warforged or saiyan races.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (MST)
As earlier mentioned, "Human, Variant (5e Race)" has generally been the accepted format, and I think it's the best. I agree that we really don't need all the variants we have. --SgtLion (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2018 (MST)
The first one, of course, since it is easy to read and offers the reader a clear break in the title. I agree that there are a number of variants which really need to be added back to the original page. These are variants which change just one feature, for example. On the first page, it is better to just add a "variant" feature, instead of creating the confusion with a whole new page. Another example are variants which break away from maintenance templates. Logically, the first page should just have been changed to that variant. Anyone may do these changes, just please let us know in the edit summary! --Green Dragon (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2018 (MST)
Thank you for the clarity. Should we be doing "Human, Variant (5e Race) II" or "Human, 2nd Variant (5e Race)" --ConcealedLight (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2018 (MST)
GreenDragon? --ConcealedLight (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2018 (MDT)
2nd, 3rd, etc is right. This is because otherwise the entire dpl's get totally messed up. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2018 (MDT)
You're obviously talking about my page, Concealed. I fixed it for you. --EpicBoss99 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (MDT)
Nope. Just seeking clarity for the collective reference of all wikians. --ConcealedLight (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2018 (MDT)
Of course, there is always the 5e Race Variants page for variant races. SirSprinkles (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2018 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!