User talk:Admin

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
D&D Wiki Help Portal
HPL.png

Joining
About
FAQ
Logging In
Mission Statement

Community
Community Portal
DnD Discussion
Featured Articles
Glossary of Jargon
Social Media
Talk Pages
Whacking with a Wet Trout

Editing
Article Naming
Campaign Settings
Constructive Editing
DnD Guidelines
DnD Links
Helpers Page
Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates
Sandbox
Standards and Formatting
Table
When to Italicize and Capitalize

Using D&D wiki
Browsing

Policies
A Good DM
Attribution Policy
Behavioral Policy
Deletion Policy
Legal
Mature Content Policy
Page Protection
Precedent
Rating Policy
Spirit and Intent
Warning Policy

Administration
List of Administrators
Requests for Adminship
Talk to the Administration

Back to Main PageMeta Pages


Archive
Archives

Homebrew banners and the case of the blind users (DnD Quest)[edit]

Wowie! Is it SgtLion makes an unintentionally really popular question about dandwiki time again? 'caaaause it sure feels like it. Now looky look, this community of helpful people who are experienced in user design have some good advice (and a few perhaps not so on point, but they tried~). I do honestly keep hearing that people don't notice our homebrew banner, as beautiful and pretty as I think it is.

I think the banner really helps, so this ain't a burning issue to me anymore, but we should probably consider progressing a little further with this goal if we can. As per suggestions, I think there's a range of options we have to improve the situation, any number of which we could implement:

  1. Put a more modest, but maybe consequently more noticeable alert image to the side or under the page title. (Either with or without keeping the banner image) Examplis gratis.
  2. Put a homebrew template, as we discussed previously, in our homebrew pages. This is now a lot more technically feasible an option than before.
  3. Add the word "Homebrew" to the HTML page title. We seemingly get a lot of complaints that pages don't show up as homebrew when linked to from elsewhere (such as Google). I'm sure it must be possible somehow.
  4. Change the banner design to 'fit in' with the rest of the site's theme, and consequently make it more noticeable (according to user design guys anyway. And in fairness I can see how their mockup example banner is perhaps more noticeable to users who are conditioned to ignore banner ads).
  5. We could try putting our homebrew material into an actual Homebrew namespace, which would make page theming (and put Homebrew in the HTML page title automatically) easier. While perfectly doable because automated tools, this would obviously be a reeeeeal big shift, could take getting used to.

I'unno. As I say, not so enormous a problem any more, but still clearly a situation with the public that we might be able to improve. I can't vouch for the technical feasibility of any of these options, but I'm sure we can figure it (or other suggestions) out, somehow, if we decide any of them seem good.

My personal preference is to implement #3 and trial out options for #1, while keeping the banner, as that makes for not so major change, while hopefully fully addressing the issue. But I'm open to all input. Thoughts? Suggestions? Preferred approaches? --SgtLion (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

I think all of these sound like excellent options if course but I think I am leaning towards #1 as a placeholder for a more long term solution such as #5. Cotsu Malcior (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2018 (MDT)
It's nice to see someone home to the site finally suggest this. Always too afraid to bring it up because how sensitive this but! I've always felt the banner to be not enough. The point about looking like an ad banner sticks out. I just don't pay attention and my knowledge this is homebrew is how I know. anyway-can you explain #2? I like number 1 but two seems neat to me. #3 doesn't seem like a bad idea if there is quite a demand for things. I'll look at #4 later but it sounds cool. and if #5 does #3 automatically then "cool beans dude". BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2018 (MDT)
If #1 is easy, it'd be fine, but I dislike it. #2 sounds complicated and vague. #3 could be easy, but seems unnecessary. #4 could be an option, but that mockup is ugly IMO. #5 sounds complicated and difficult to get people to follow, though it'd be ideal since the site no longer hosts homebrew exclusively. But, as I've always said, if they don't dislike how unclear it is that it's homebrew (really not that unclear), they'll dislike that we host homebrew at all, or that they don't know what homebrew is, or that it's not balanced, or that they don't know how to run balanced games. People mostly complain because they dislike us for no good reason, and I have never and still don't see any reason to "accommodate" them (because it's impossible).--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

If this is a problem we need to fix, I am a big fan of #4 and I think we should go with that. The homebrew banner is absolutely GORGEOUS, but the color scheme of it draws it away from the eye because of all the bright browns on the page itself. I think changing it to a color that pops more would be perfect and it wouldn't clog up space on our pages. --EpicBoss99 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

Honestly? All five sound good to me. All of them simultaneously, that is.
Yes, even the fact #1 and #4 overlap. Do them both. Please ram it through our blinded eyes.
Yes, even the homebrew namespace. That seems vital if some of our long-standing administrators insist that this is a D&D Wiki and not only a D&D Homebrew Wiki. I have not expressed it as of yet, but I greatly dislike how pages like Player's Handbook (5e) and Wizards of the Coast have a homebrew banner on them. This change would help alleviate that, though it would just be a bonus to the primary intent. - Guy 17:03, 29 August 2018 (MDT)
Thank you for using the correct referencing there Guy else I would have marked this talk page already.
Jokes aside, my opinion is aligned with Guy as these sound like perfectly good suggestions if my understanding of #5 is correct. In regards to a new banner, is the one I'd previously created worth bringing up and if not I'm fine with putting another more appropriate one together if you all have some more information on what you guys what beyond what's been said from a technical standing. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2018 (MDT)
Thanks y'all for input so far. I like how we've already had most options favoured by different people. I appreciate the desire to not have to accommodate people, but I do believe there's a sincere issue about noticeability that would improve our usability and public standing; If we really find no improvement whatsoever I'm happy to revert our changes and call them nerds. I also appreciate the desire to implement all these things, but there comes a point where we're just making the site ugly and unusable at little extra benefit (banners+alerts+templates would hurt my eyes). As for clarifying #2, it's bloody hard to find wherever we had the previous discussion on this, essentially I'm talking about a template much like our messagebox IRR templates (someone designed a pretty one with a tankard of beer an' all) being shown at the top of homebrew pages. And my personal opinion is that CL's banner is maybe too in line with our theme, and so tips back over the balance, but my ux view is pretty poor.
With our current input, I guess I'm leaning more toward #5 as a feasible option than before. We'll certainly wait for at least Green Dragon's input, and I'd ideally like at least one other veteran user's opinion ('course, all further opinions still very welcomed), before we decide whatever direction to go from here. --SgtLion (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2018 (MDT)
As a frequent accidental user of your homebrew pages, I'd like to suggest that #3 would be the most valuable to me. Here's my use case: one of my players has told me he wants to play a "knight", so I pull out my phone and Google search for [5e knight class] and I click on the first result, which leads me to your homebrew knight class (when the correct answer would have been to click on the third result for the Unearthed Arcana class). I imagine that improving the banner would help as well, but my real issue is that I didn't need to spend the time downloading the homebrew page at all. -DanB (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (MDT)
With regards to Guy's point about the banner being on pages it shouldn't be on, would there be a way to place the template on every page in Category:User rather than doing it by namespace?
As for the design itself, I quite like the design that Eschatonic posted way back when the homebrew banner was first being discussed, here. It stands out, but not so much that it looks like a banner ad. Salasay's {{homebrew}} template mentioned there is also quite good. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 06:44, 5 September 2018 (MDT)
Oh yeah, I like those. Salasay's one especially. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2018 (MDT)
I would lean towards 1, 2 and 4. Is it possible to make a homebrew template like a disclaimer of sorts, and once a user had read its content and "agreed" with it, it would [hide]? I like the mockup that they showed on the discussion, and if we get some designs we can change the banner.
3 and 5 seem unnecessary, and we should make a namespace for pages like Wizards of the Coast so they don't have a banner. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2018 (MDT)
I believe there was some talk of updating the background and/or theme, so should we look into that before making a new banner? After all, there's no point creating a banner that fits with our theme better only to change the theme and need another new banner :P But that only applies if getting a new theme/background turns out to be feasible. My time is limited these days, but I can try to look into the theme/background and/or banner with SgtLion soon.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Based on what I know is currently using the (main) namespace, it seems like almost everything belongs in Category:User, belongs in Category:Publication, belongs under a different namespace that currently exists, or belongs in a currently non-existent category for game content which isn't really User-made but also isn't OGL but has more information than a redirect (e.g., Elf (5e Race)). While I still think the Homebrew namespace would be preferable, if we were to go a different route as GD suggests, then namespaces for Publication (or whatever) and Ambiguous Content (or whatever) should be made instead. (These deductions are made in part based on a dpl which currently exists on this page. I was too lazy to view every single entry but that's the gist of what I gathered.) - Guy 07:08, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
I like Green Dragon's suggestion. I can imagine a way to implement a notice (vaguely like Salasay's template, but appropriate words) that appears on all pages, hides when you acknowledge it. Stops it from being a pain for regular users, but lets new people unambiguously see the good stuff.
Unless we do move Homebrew to its own namespace (which I'm now convinced would be a good idea, if hard work), the plausible ways of altering only 'user' pages are hacky at best, security-flaw-inducing at worst; So anything is really an all-of-Main-or-nothing approach. But with an adequately worded notice, I don't see that being a problem.
I do think #3 is important for users browsing via Google - I'd like to at least look into how easy it'd be to implement it. I'll try remember to experiment with a dismissable banner. And #1 and #2 I hesitate with, as it would clutter Main Page and others, but I'll look further into 'em too. --SgtLion (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
Could you make a mock-up template based on the information above that we could test out for a time and then discuss whether it is useful, appropriate, obtrusive, and such? I don't think that a site-wide notice would be problematic. I agree that making something read the url of a page for a namespace would probably be buggy. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2018 (MDT)
Aye aye, I certainly won't be implementing anything before passing it by here first. --SgtLion (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

A detailed deletion policy?[edit]

Recent events and discussions have emboldened me to attempt to create a comprehensive deletion policy. It was inspired by Wikipedia:Deletion policy, by D&D Wiki precedent I've observed, and several of our own policies (Template:Delete/why and Category:Candidates for Deletion, among others). Please see User:Guy/Deletion Policy.

I would like to achieve visible consensus before adding this page to formal policy and to the Help Portal. It is intended to reflect the wiki community and our standards, not just mine, so if there is any criticism or improvements to be made I would very much appreciate them. (Even though the page is currently part of my user space, feel free to be bold and edit the page directly.) - Guy 20:59, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

I can't think of anything I'd change from that. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:24, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
GamerAim put forth a few ideas on User talk:Guy/Deletion Policy, and I would appreciate the input of a third party on those ideas. - Guy 07:09, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
Thanks! I was worried no other admins would see our discussion because they don't have that talk page on their watchlist, but now they know :) Over all it looks good to me; just needs some clarification from GD and other admins, IMO. I'm very glad that we're consolidating all this policy and precedent. As our discussion shows, there's a lot of bits that've been spread across the Wiki and difficult to go back and find, so this page will undoubtedly be a marked improvement for our users!--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
I agree with the application of this as I said on its talk page. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

I went ahead and implemented this at Help:Deletion Policy, sans the section on "user request" since that seemed to be the only point of contention. That part still needs discussing, so please join in on the discussion. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:30, 8 October 2018 (MDT)

I'm happy with this bold move, and I'm glad we're giving the user request section a little more time to be discussed; So well done.
I'd encourage any admins who haven't to give the article a read-through, if not just because it's got an impressively accurate and comprehensive sum of the process of deletion, then so we at least know we're all on the same page, and can discuss anything missed in discussion thus far. --SgtLion (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
Does anyone want sole contributor requests for deletion to be changed? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
Personally, I would prefer that we do not delete articles based on sole contributor requests for deletion. I think it has the potential to damage D&D Wiki by depriving it and its users of valuable content, including content that may already be in use.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
Though I don't like us losing content over user requests, we do probably have arguably legal (and/or moral) expectations in some cases to delete it. I would support a conditional clause that gave us discretion to not delete important (e.g. featured article), substantive (e.g. whole campaign setting), or long-held (e.g. posted >1 year ago) content at user request, because as GA said, these things do become used and relied upon to be there. --SgtLion (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

Additional Deletion Option[edit]

Would it be possible to include an option to delete a talk page when you delete the page as part of the same action and vise versa? Though I'm not sure why a talk page wouldn't be deleted when its page has been. If there are such cases and those cases are rare could the option be auto ticked? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

That would be super useful, however forcing you to manually delete a talk page at least makes sure that you've looked at it first. There have been cases where I've had to reverse my page deletion decision because of something I've subsequently read on the talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
Same. Often I get confused, go ahead with deletion, then see the talk page and realise I made a mistake all along. There's no easy way to include an option to do this that I know of; and manual implementation would likely take an awful lot of code and bug-testing. --SgtLion (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
That makes sense, and thanks for the insights Sarg. Just thinking about how we can improve our quality of life. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2018 (MDT)

Restricting Execution of Administrator Powers[edit]

In light of concerns about administrator overreach, I'd like to propose some restrictions on when administrators can execute their powers. To be clear, this is just a proposal based on my interpretation of what users have expressed a desire for. If no one thinks they're a good idea, that's just as well. I'm proposing — again, in response to suggestions from others — that administrators not be allowed to:

  • Warn or block users for offenses against them. If a breach of behavioral policy is committed against one administrator, another administrator must issue the warning or block.
  • Adjudicate the validity of a warning issued against the adjudicating administrator. An administrator different than the one that was warned must be responsible for adjudicating the validity of the warning.
  • Delete an article that was marked for deletion by the same administrator. An administrator other than the one that proposed the deletion of the article must execute the deletion. Edit: This was already decided as a policy, but not everyone saw it (myself included). Every admin should have this talk page watch-listed, right? So, I'm reproducing it since it's relevant to the issue at hand. I'm also adding another proposal:
  • All administrators should be explicitly notified when new policies are put into effect. Administrators being (unintentionally) left in the dark about policy changes is sure to cause issues where an administrator is accused of overreach solely for not having been apprised of an update to policy. I'm unsure how we should go about ensuring this?

These are the three main ones I can think of that have been brought up as issues within the last month.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2018 (MDT)

I think the first bullet point is completely reasonable. I'm not sure about the necessity of the second bullet – as far as I was aware, warnings which get challenged aren't arbitrated by just one other admin, but by the community through discussion about its validity. You objected previously to ConcealedLight being the final decider on the validity of his own warnings (and I agree with you that his being allowed to do so may not have been appropriate), but he was allowed to do so after discussion had taken place about that. I can understand where you're coming from with this, but I just don't see a need for it, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
How would admins be notified about policy changes? Would whoever implemented the policy just post about it on each admin's talk page? Would just one message get posted to this page? (as you said, every admin should have this page watched) I can definitely get behind this generally, just asking about the specifics. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 21:22, 4 October 2018 (MDT)
Re:Informing admins. The easiest option is to just post it here. However, is a user is gone for more than a few days, they might miss an update on this page. So, unfortunately, I do think the only option that would work would be to post about it on each admin's talk page, that way they'll be notified no matter how long the absence.
Also, I think it's a far greater overreach to allow an admin to pardon himself than allow him to issue warnings for infractions committed against himself. Because a) a breach of policy is still a breach of policy, and b) an administrator could potentially be allowed to violate all of these and then pardon himself. I understand that GD himself enabled CL to make that decision, but as you said, it was not appropriate; if GD wished to overrule an administrator's warning, he should have done it himself, not granted the authority to the administrator whose warning implicitly accused him of misusing his power. Again, not blaming CL for being put in that position, but I think we shouldn't allow it because it presents a considerable conflict of interest.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2018 (MDT)
I don't think making the proposed rules(with the exception of point 3 which is already policy) into a hard-coded policy wouldn't be beneficial. I could see point 1 being a rule of thumb or guideline that administrators should endeavor to follow in cases when doing so would cause further issues or when their personal involvement could affect their judgment but other than that I'm not sold on the proposed rules or their necessity. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
I am still deeply confused on how an administrator issuing warnings for policy breaches is more personally involved than an administrator revoking a warning against himself for policy breaches. Could someone please try to explain this?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
1) sure. I don't think it is an issue at current but Admins that don't get along could take offense to something another admin said and just warn. With this proposal, a 3rd party is used to help determine the validity of the harm to a victim. (this would could have prevented a warning against CL for misquoting....)
2) duh. How in the world this happened to begin with is bonkers. Gee-willikers Batman.
  • sidenote:a warned user already has the right to refute or appeal a warning. Allowing them to be a judge, jury, and executioner in their own discipline just doesn't add up to muah.
3) moot. it is already written, it must be true.
4) an unenforceable thing. it is just communication that is necessary. as courtesy, try and post on the admin page if policy is being discussed somewhere on the wiki. might overload the admin header topics. Maybe one of the topics could be an unofficial "sticky". One that remains when other discussions are archived.
Replied. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
I think your suggestion on communication is good. I know it might not be easy, but all this discussion on policy is moot if half the administration isn't made aware of it. And then I'm worried about potential drama if an administrator wasn't made aware of policy updates and then violates policy by accident. For that matter, it could be helpful to non-admins as well to have a sticky for policy updates, so that existing users don't get burned for violating a policy that didn't exist before. I wish I could call this a small issue, but in our current political climate, providing transparency to all users (admins included) about what policy administrators are expected to enforce is important for preventing abuse of power.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2018 (MDT)

I don't know anything about adminship but a reduce in power could be good some people could go drunk with power and ruin the wiki I also think that when someone runs admin they should be trustworthy of the task but that's just me. --Alucarddragonborn (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2018 (MDT)

I don't think that it's a concern about being "drunk with power," per se. If someone were the kind of person that would, they wouldn't make it past RfA. The issue is the conflict of interest when enforcing policy on someone the admin is in a dispute with, and admins sometimes having a hard time separating a policy violation (which there may very well be) from taking personal offense to something someone said. This is why Wikipedia has a policy against involved admins enforcing policy, and instead having to defer to an uninvolved administrator, except in egregious and obvious violations, like someone cussing them out. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:28, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
Could you link to the relevant Wikipedia policy for that? It may be simpler to explicitly inherit that, rather than draft up our own things. --SgtLion (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
[1]Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:52, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
Ahh I see so geodude admins shouldn't mix their feelings with adminship like you said being offended and should just enforce the wikis policys.--Alucarddragonborn (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
The warning policy changes should be brought up on the respective policy page, not here.
I like the idea of a policy board post-it. The user page for the admin would be a good place for it. I recommend that admins watch all policy and infrastructure pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2018 (MDT)

There hasn't been much discussion on this lately; I'm going to go ahead an implement #1 because consensus seems to be in favor of it (ie no one objected). I would like to see more discussion on #2. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:10, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

I don't think anyone objected to #2 either, so please go ahead and add that.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2018 (MDT)
I am not so certain about #2. If there is really such a situation, I would prefer that concensus is used rather than one admin adjudicating another one. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2018 (MDT)
I'm confused, GD. Are you saying that it's okay for an admin to adjudicate over his own warning but that an admin can't warn another admin? There's actually been multiple cases where you left adjudication of rules, warnings and bans solely to a single admin. If necessary, I can cite these, but my point is that your statement is confusing because I fail to see how it relates to #2, except as in my second sentence. And your saying "if there is really such a situation" is misleading, because there has been a situation already. More than one, if you extend "a situation" to cover all instances of you leaving a sole admin to adjudicate warnings or bans.
Even if you've changed your mind on leaving sole admins to adjudicate another admin, there's still the issue of adjudicating over oneself, as well as the precedent I mention above. I fear that it is a dangerous precedent; in all frankness, I think that it's already set a dangerous precedent doomed to breed corruption on D&D Wiki, and I want rules in place to prevent it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2018 (MDT)
Agreed. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2018 (MDT)
I see how you have misunderstood me. An "adjudicating" admin is a person solely responsible to make a decision: an end "arbitor". Why should one admin make the decision if the actions of another admin are made in good faith? Where has the consensus gone? Not only that, but why doesn't the warning administrator also adjudicate their warning against the admin they warned :P?
I think that any oversight method for a warning system, designed to lessen the harder side of various policies, should only use a standard verification system. Concensus is a core concept for Wikipedia, and suddenly ripping it apart to place a system in power that is basically a sole arbitor making the final decisions, does not belong on a wiki.
Your link, and that decision of mine, was taken as a way to move the discussion forward while putting the current policies and persons interested in concensus together to modify a decision (called a "warning") which is intended to lessen harder policies. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2018 (MDT)

More {{delete}} Discussion[edit]

I am terribly sorry to create another header but I am sorely lost where the discussion is about this very example: Malu Malu (5e Race). The reason I am bringing it up is the page is marked incomplete which I think is accurate. The discussion I cannot find eluded to NOT deleting articles simply because lore is missing. This has sat for 2 years in such condition. Can I get some feedback from others about situations like this?
My personal feelings-no one has taken the time in at least a year to write flavor or fluff for pages like this and as sad as it is to delete for this reason why hasn't the OP added flavor? I am not an author and cannot write stuff for every page needing this, and the way I see it, no other person with a hint of writing skills wanted to save the page either. I would be okay with almost bare pages being deleted. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2018 (MDT)

I don't recall that discussion so I too would be interested in this. To help answer your other question, and I'm not too sure how to word this but I find its often the case where users will come to the site to find something to complete their character build. When they can't they often make content like so that grants them exactly what they want, leave to get their DM's approval and never touch the page again. The number of races I've seen that have traits and then anything from a line to nothing at all is bothersome. Hope that answers one of your questions. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2018 (MDT)
With the implementation of this new deletion policy, a page should only be deleted if it requires undue effort from the GM to be playable. My personal interpretation is that some minimum of lore is necessary to make it 'playable' for campaigns. This is one case where an agreed upon 'rule of thumb' may be handy for judging minimum effort for lore playability, such as requiring articles to have a few sentences in every fluff section, or something along these lines. --SgtLion (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
It was my stub (but not my deletion proposal): "Barely any description. What is their culture like? What deities do they worship? How do they get on with other races? What kinds of places do they live? etc etc. Traits are incomplete: the climb speed is what you would get anyway; The bite has no attack or DC info."
These things matter just as much as the "crunch" for using the race in a game, otherwise it's just contextless numbers. Therefore I believe it was correct to remove the page if no-one cares about the page enough to add this information. There might be an argument for using the abandoned template instead, but personally I only use this if I think there's something interesting about the page, some hook, where we hope that someone does pick it up. Marasmusine (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
I'd agree with all that, fo' sho. --SgtLion (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
I think that a minimum of an arbitrary description of appearance, personality and maybe culture and habitat should be in place to avoid deletion. Deities, history and society stuff aren't that important, IMO. They're things the DM is most likely to adjust to fit his campaign, whereas appearance, personality and — to a lesser extent — a rough culture and habitat are easier to throw in since they don't interact with the rest of the world so much. Again, I think a minimum is a good idea, but not all fluff is created equally.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
That race is a very good example of a candidate for deletion, based on the reasons already stated in this discussion. In most other instances it makes sense to use {{abandoned}} first. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2018 (MDT)

Mobile Skin[edit]

Yo y'all. I've been vaguely working on a mobile skin (extension, skin, preview) for the site.

Unhelpfully, testing it site-wide without effectively forcibly deploying it to all mobiles isn't possible. But if anyone's got the time to give it a go on a mobile screen (it will look a little silly on desktop screens, but by all means try it) - it'd be helpful an' appreciated to get feedback on what's good, or broken, or needs improving, or if the mobile format is even a worthwhile addition at all.

You can check how a random wiki page looks in the mobile view with this link.

Some high traffic pages: Main Page, 5e Homebrew, Help Portal, 3.5e SRD Elf, User Page, Editing a page

Alternatively, you can see how any page looks in Mobile view by appending '?useformat=mobile' to the end of the URL. Please let me know any thoughts on it; I'm not a big mobile user myself, so it's hard for me to judge these things. --SgtLion (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

Some questions and concerns.
Collapsible tables do not work. See 4e Campaign Settings.
The auto-hide for headers does not seem to fit. For example, see Door of the Weak (5e Trap). Can we disable this?
The top bar breaks into the titles. Could we seperate the top functions onto the top of the page, with a D&D Wiki logo so that they are seperated from the titles (maybe with the discussion link too)?
Is it possible to make the horizontal scroll bar always visible, or appear more prominently than it does?
Talk pages are not skinned.
These are the first things that I have noticed. All in all, it seems to be really good though. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2018 (MDT)
That's all sups helpful feedback, thanks for all of it <3 I'm fairly sure we should be able to address all these issues with some CSS tweaking - I'll try have a play around to address these issues in the next few days. --SgtLion (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2018 (MDT)
Also the compact recent changes does not autohide. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2018 (MST)

Create Account page does not function[edit]

I am not certain if this is the correct section to place this topic, so if it isn't please do direct me to the correct spot for it.

I am a D&D wiki user who is interested in creating an account in order to participate in the development and nuturing of the wiki, but unfortunately the Create Account page is broken.

Specifically, when its link is clicked on, it provides the statement "www.dandwiki.com is currently unable to handle this request." and gives an "HTTP ERROR 500" error.

I look forward to hearing possible solutions and/or answers. Until then, thank you in advance for putting up with this anonymous person sticking something on your page. -17th October, 2018

Really? Goshdang, thanks for notifying us. I'll look into this. --SgtLion (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (MDT)
Yeah, as I suspected, this was a coding error I caused by fixing a thing yesterday. It should now work! --SgtLion (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2018 (MDT)

Policy/Preload Change Discussions[edit]

I started something here: Talk:5e Feat Preload. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (MDT)

This talk page Talk:Meadowlands (Stormforge Supplement)#Moving Forward started discussing something. In case users aren't watching it and have anything to add. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

And GamerAim started this today - Talk:D&D Wiki on Social Media#Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Afflictor(3.5e Class)[edit]

I know this page, Afflictor(3.5e Class), isn't right, but the right way to approach it or the user escapes me. Any users' help would be great! Thanks :-) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (MDT)

I put the page up for deletion and gave the user a poke; let's see if that gets them going. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:27, 23 October 2018 (MDT)
Sweet! Thanks Geo. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2018 (MDT)

Weird text placment in 5e SRD creatures[edit]

Hey, I just want to point out that some of the text are in really weird places, most notably the section on Armor, Weapon, and Tool Proficiencies is in the middle of the senses section, then the Grapple Rules for Monsters are under the limited useage heading and Modifying Creatures is under size. Babosa (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

Huh, I'll try to look into this and make sure it's supposed to be that way, since it's transcribed from the 5e SRD. It definitely looks weird, so it might be an error!--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

Infinity Gauntlet Spam[edit]

Am I the only one seeing this? I think I've blocked 3 IPs and protected 2 pages. Is there more that can be done? or simply stay vigilant? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2018 (MST)

Can you please supply some references? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2018 (MST)
On this page Cursed Blade (5e Equipment) two different IPs wanted to make this item the gauntlet, and then again on this page Courage-Seeker (5e Equipment). I just happen to have these on my watch list so that's why I caught them. I haven't searched into more pages being vandalized for the infinity gauntlet. Maybe there's nothing that can be done except for what I and Quincy have done and others are just aware that its happened more than just once. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2018 (MST)
Special:CheckUser (get users) on both 72.234.104.76 and 66.91.185.220 give some interesting results. Either it was a focused vandalism attempt, where one vandal wanted to support another one, or a third channel of communication was used to carry out their intentions. If we block those users I doubt it would happen again. Also, a search does not return any additional infinty gauntlet results so I think you saw them all while patrolling. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2018 (MST)
That's good to hear. Thanks for your help. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (MST)

ConcealedLight conduct[edit]

I find some of ConcealedLight's comments here to be needlessly disparaging towards me. To be frank, the negative attention that I have garnered from him and others recently is making me feel attacked any time I come on D&D Wiki, to the point that I have had to stay away from D&D Wiki and even Discord for fear of the hostility being lobbed at me by an increasingly toxic community. Would an administrator please look into his comments and warn him if you believe they are in violation of behavior policy, as I believe they are?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Sorry, but warnings on D&D Wiki are for official channels. In a discussion about making an external platform official, issuing a warning for reasons why a user feels the way they do from an unofficial source, does not follow policy. For example, saying something to another user like "in our game your unjust absolute control ruined our roleplaying!" does not warrant a warning. If everything had taken place in an environment which we condemn as official, this would definitely warrant a warning.
Another way of looking at the situation, is like a boiling pot. The concensus does not know anything about the discord channel, and each users input is boiled down to make the discussion ready. The application of each comment adds another flavor to the soup. In the end, either we can eat the soup or we all decide that we would rather try something else.
I hope that you can look past any toxicity arising from the dicussion. You don't need to respond, or even take part in the discussion if it's making you uncomfortable. No one has anything against you, you're a great guy, but to reach concensus and implement controversial policies there are always unpleasant surprises. Good luck! --Green Dragon (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2018 (MST)
I don't think GamerAim is asking for a warning particularly based on Discord conduct, I think the Discord comment was a half-aside. They have linked an example of the comments made on D&D Wiki that they feel are troublesome, and this part is very much within our remit to warn if appropriate. --SgtLion (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2018 (MST)
Maybe it's just me but I don't see how ConcealedLight's comments are in violation of any sort of policy. Quincy (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2018 (MST)
While I don't find this particularly surprising I too don't believe my comments were out of line in the example given. If anything this further solidifies my previous request for GA to not interact with me. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2018 (MST)

5eSRD Creatures[edit]

Since all the Miscellaneous Creatures are beasts and there are very few beasts not in Miscellaneous Creatures, wouldn't it be a good idea to move everything in Miscellaneous Creatures to monsters to make searching for creatures easier. and similar reasoning with NPCs Babosa (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2018 (MST)

If I am not mistaken, they were already like this in some way until I went through and changed the breadcrumbs to mirror the monster manual’s way of listing monsters and miscellaneous creatures. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2018 (MST)
correction, I started and Sir Sprinkles finished. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Account Deletion[edit]

Hello, I'm terribly sorry, I can not find an admin- I hope my request here amongst the banners will come true. I humbly request my account to be deleted from this site. My name is not the name I should adhere to, no matter how sell-sword you want to talk about it. I picked up real swordsmanship and it has continued my integrity, pride, and dress. I will not be "returning" to create a new name, you do not have to concern yourselves with that. You have a very nice library- I have read my fill. I found my first knight here in fact- if I ever play I may very well come to find myself a silent knight. --Warrior of the Snake (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2018 (MST)

For the record I want to delete "mercenary guardian"- it just dawned on me how far I have come since elementary school things. That guardian is a façade by fat kids who want to vs the tundra wolf/prairie falcon warriors when it comes to the flanking maneuvers of getting up close and personal with a crossbow. At least, that's how far I keep getting in my life. Nothing regular like a regular snake, but I am infact a viper sort of man. Be it space mercenaries, SWAT, counter-terrorists, sell-swords, barbarian commanders with two swords(NOT a son of a chieftain)the Kurgan, shadow rogues and mostly that kind of stuff. Bikers, excetra. As I have done with every place that's important to me, but am leaving this hall, my snake must be mentioned. Now, I'm not going to prad like some tree viper who would be a bard, nor will I get really far and bring to light a guess that a "mercenary guardian" does and have it be rhinocerous viper- I am the Malayan Pit Viper! Velvet Assassin. Sebastian, the Velvet Assassin. --Warrior of the Snake (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2018 (MST)

One last thing. On your freedom fighters and shadow ops page- "That's quite the 'iron dragon' you got there" I found a book through a twist of fate for Heaven. It's called "Rifts Mercenaries" try it out you guys/gals. It will suit your campaigns a lot better- since everything in it is what we need to defeat already. But it really depends on the opponent that makes the "scarecrow" into a "harvest", because mine sure as hell didn't get "skinner"! He also lives right next door- I don't even have to think much about what animal I will take for my forest mercenary. May the skulls sink in the blood of your wake. --Warrior of the Snake (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2018 (MST)

I have now read that page more than a brisk understanding- it was actually not what I thought. It was like school started over again. ;P totally why I'm not falling to giving up my spirit animal. They lost "retrievers", "flying squirrels", "coyotes", "weasel", "jackal", yellow bears, "possum"/"thresher shark" and the rest are like the Steel Dragons. Just kids and their families who don't get in my way and continue to brainwash. Don't forget to work out. --Warrior of the Snake (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (MST)

I have no idea what you're getting at, but we cannot delete accounts. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2018 (MST)
What are you smoking and where can I score some? Quincy (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2018 (MST)
Waaa —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2018 (MST)

Complete Arcane Content[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the user Maiovez has been posting content from the 3.5e book "Complete Arcane", and I'd like the input of an admin with more knowledge on copyright and SRD material to weigh in with regards to whether what this user has posted is legal or not. Quincy (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2018 (MST)

No, content from Complete Arcane is not licensed under the OGL. Please delete all these pages, and let the user know that they need to stop. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2018 (MST)
Thanks for the information. I have deleted the offending pages and formally warned the user in accordance with policy. Quincy (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2018 (MST)

Need assistance cleaning cobwebs[edit]

I am going through my old subset pages and removing any that will no longer be worked on or used in any capacity. Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to delete content, so I'm marking them for deletion. Could someone with admin power please remove them? --Kydo (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2018 (MST)

Roger that, I'll get right on it. Quincy (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2018 (MST)
In case you aren't aware. This section of my control panel was designed to display exactly this kind of content. See here. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2018 (MST)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors