Talk:Main Page

Archives
Discussions 1–30 Discussions 31–60 Discussions 61–90 Discussions 91–120 Discussions 121–150 Discussions 151–180

Featured Article Rotation

While I believe it was a great idea to implement this I think the follow improvements need to be made.

• The featured articles in rotation should indicate their name, what they are(monster, race, class) and what edition they are for.
• Fix the featured article images so external images display.
• There should be a means to pause the slideshow as you can look at the page and read about a line or two before it switches and then have to keep sliding back.
• A easy way to get to the featured articles page. My suggestion: Just clicking on the slide, given the speed, should open a new tab with the page on it.
• A easy way to get to the list of featured articles.

Thoughts? --ConcealedLight (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (MST)

Agreed with all of the above (Varkarrus (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (MST))

I like all your ideas, but since this uses the SMW slideshow format, I would appreciate it if you could spend some time trying to get your ideas to work with this format, and see if we can make some improvements. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (MST)

I'm not familiar with it but I will see what I can do GD. --ConcealedLight (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2018 (MST)

I implemented some of your bullet points above. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)

I've noticed an issue with the rotation. If you slide the bar back and forth for an extended period (which I did for science, of course) the slide doesn't display properly. SirSprinkles (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (MST)

Can you maybe submit this bug to the extensions developer? I doubt that it will get fixed any other way. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (MDT)

We've probably had this discussion before, but I was wondering about changing indexes so that they lead with a "vetted list" of stuff that admins think are good - of the quality we would want representing us. This would include featured articles, but also possible featured article nominations. Then would follow the normal mixed-bag list, and finally the "needs maintenance " list. One problem might be that anyone could add the "good page" category to their page, but we could obfuscate this by using Category:* or somesuch. I could go through one of the shorter lists to demonstrate what this might look like. Marasmusine (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe can you explain it better? The current problem is that admins should be taking over the FA's (Talk:Featured Articles#Time Limits?), but I doubt that is being worked on. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (MDT)p

I kinda get what Mara is saying(I think). Essentially, he is wanting to create a list of completed pages that could be used to better represent dandwiki and to do that he wants to change something fundemental about the way to site works. Mara, I've been thinking about the something similar and the site representation as well over the last few days. Take a look at the subreddit User:SgtLion registered for us, (reddifying sludges beautiful formatting done by yours truly). I was thinking of proposing the idea to GD, of submitting content onto it(FA's and "good" articles) and developing our reddit prescence since we get bashed constantly on it. --ConcealedLight (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

I disagree with this, since then we are relying on a select group of users instead of a system. This is also why we added the top banner, and allow all users to work with maintenance templates. I am open to expanding the FA system, but curating really has nothing to do with a game system. Curators are for select exhibits and personalized works, not for anything we have. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

And in regards to developing and improving our prescence of reddit through uploading content to the subreddit? --ConcealedLight (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

Can you please give me your context? I cannot piece together what you mean without it. As I said, expanding the Featured Articles system would be great. This could include an index, just when its curated then it loses its usefulness. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

[edit conflict] I'm personally not interested in reddit, I don't use it. I want readers of this site (including myself) to be able to quickly look through quality pages to add content to their game, rather than wading through though thousands of pages of dross. I don't know what "system" could do this other than getting trusted users to go "yep, this is a good page" (and allowing another trusted user to contest that). The admins, I would like to think, are trusted users. I wouldn't describe the change as "fundamental"? It's just listing some pages before others for visibility, by adding a category. To be clear, I am not suggesting this as a replacement for FA. Edit: Particularly as FA tends to focus on large articles like classes and races, whereas the "good" list would include very short pages like equipment or feats that are ready to drop into a campaign. Marasmusine (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

Ah, you know what GD, disregard the above. I'd be better of focusing my efforts on FAs. Marasmusine (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

Not sure if you're aware but there is a [[Category:Completed_Pages]]. --ConcealedLight (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

I think there's going to be a difference between what an author believes is "complete" and what we decide through consensus is a "quality article". In some cases, the "completed" request that no further edits be made might prevent an article from becoming a QA! Marasmusine (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

Discussion continued at Talk:Featured_Articles#Featured_Articles_and_Lists

Redacted revisions

Can I be clear on that we have inhereted Wikipedia's policy regarding redacted revisions? . I'm not sure if we've had a discussion on its implementation. Marasmusine (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (MDT)

We did neglect to have a proper discussion regarding this ability; I guess because we've always *technically* had the ability. I fully believe that the policy in question should be in effect, it seems entirely reasonable. The only addendum I don't see in the linked policy is that we should feel free to hide IPs if people come to us privacy concerns. --SgtLion (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2018 (MDT)

I agree. If someone is of another opinion, then we should first discuss this again. How it is now, though, everyone has reached this point. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (MDT)

The only time I ever used it at Wikipedia was to hide a series of bad-faith edits that were accompanied by personal attacks in the edit summary (criteria 2 under WPs policy). I just want to make sure that we are hiding the revisions that follow these criteria, rather than for example hiding revisions that we just happen not to like. Marasmusine (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2018 (MDT)

This edit [] doesn’t seem to go along with the norm. Wouldn’t “undo” have been appropriate vs hiding cursing? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2019 (MST)

Seeing that in the end admins have to ban the user anyway, it's fine to delete the revision. Of course, this is more work than it may be worth, so it's also fine to undo the edit. I don't think we need a hard policy on which way we best deal with vandalism, most importantly it is no longer there. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (MST)

So, I was wondering.....

I was wondering, how do I become an Admin? I was going through some classes and races a few days ago and they didn't seem right to me, but only an Admin could change them.Any way I could become an Admin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Travis Stoll (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Generally, to become an admin, you would go through the Requests for Adminship process. As for the classes and races you took issue with, could you leave more detailed feedback on their respective talk pages? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:49, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

You could tell us here (or on an admin's talk page) which pages, and we can remove the protection (if only temporarily). I think that would be the fastest way. Marasmusine (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (MDT)

Equipment Spacing?

Hi, I've been wounding why equipment pages have so much spacing. I've asked GA and Geo in private as well as looked back through the logs but can't find anything about a discussion. Does anyone know? Or am I better off asking Mara directly? —ConcealedLight (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2018 (MDT)

You added the |property section to the 5e magic item template, which caused it, see Template talk:5e Magic Item.--Blobby383b (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (MDT)

Yeah, I've fixed it. I was more asking why the 5e Magic Item template is enclosed in a div that restricts the page width to 75%? —ConcealedLight (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2018 (MDT)

Playtesting

I thought it'd be a good idea to put Cotsu's playtesting discussions on the recent news, but not sure how y'all felt. Yay...Nay? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2018 (MDT)

Is the goal of the discussion to start a wiki game? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (MDT)

I do believe so. I looked into the history of recent news which has announcements for wiki games, so I am sort of feeling like I shouldn't just looked at that first. Live and learn. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (MDT)

Once Cotsu Malcior is ready, then yes add a news posting about it. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (MDT)

List of nominated articles on front page

Hi, I was thinking it'd be a good idea to list all featured AND quality article nominees on the right side of the front page, as a way to promote voting and discussion on the pages. We can put it to a vote. Varkarrus (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

So, we don't put ideas up for a vote unless concensus does not bring the discussion to any reasonable conclusion. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2018 (MST)

As GD says, matters should be discussed as a community before being put to vote. See WP:NOTDEM and WP:VOTE. Dandwiki follows these same ideals, for the most part. --SgtLion (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Discussion

What do you mean by right side of the front page? I don't see a place where it would go. We have no sidebar. And by front page, I assume you mean this page?--GamerAim (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Support

Yeah, I'm supporting. Varkarrus (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

Oppose

I am opposing this proposition for the simple reason that there's no proposal on how this would be implemented. I think it's a good idea and would support attempts to actually do it, but this vote doesn't offer any specifics on implementation. It seems to be like a regular discussion should have been held to discuss our options. If there's multiple ideas on implementation and/or people disagree with this idea, then we should put it to a vote. Otherwise, I fail to see what purpose this vote actually serves.--GamerAim (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

Suggestions to help users avoid mistaking homebrew for official

As you know, there's a long-standing issue that users mistake D&D Wiki's homebrew for official. Currently, I feel the site's notices could be improved to help avoid confusion. Here are my suggestions:

• The left text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" can be ambiguous because it may sound like users only write the pages (as with any wiki) but that the content is official. I recommend replacing it with something clearer like "The #1 repository of fan-made game content!"
• Someone told me that they ignored the "Homebrew Page" sign because they mistook it for an advertisement. It looks too different to the rest of the site, the text is hard to read, and it's way up at the top where people may ignore it. I suggest replacing it with a thin bar which appears below the page title and says "This content was created by D&D Wiki contributor {{USERNAME}}." or "This game content was created by members of the D&D Wiki community (read more)." with (read more) linking to an FAQ on homebrew.

I also think the following would be advantageous:

• I recommend replacing the background image with another similar image, if one can be found or made. The current one is owned by Wizards of the Coast and may incur a copyright complaint, and using official WotC art in the wallpaper may cause some people to assume the site is official.
• I recommend that the help pages advise contributors not to name their content the same thing as existing official content, to avoid confusion.

• I'm a fan of that new slogan. I'd support it.
• It is not our responsibility to account for the ignorance of every possible user. It is not our fault your player was less than brilliant. Ultimately, there will be people who will just assume that, because it's a wiki, it's official, no matter what we say.
• I always felt the background images, while fancy, were a little strange. Perhaps it's time to talk about updating the theme of the website again?
• The help pages already do this. There are several places in which we specify the rules regarding remakes of official content.

--Kydo (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2018 (MST)

I second these suggestions, particularly the banner replacement. Though, I have no issue with the site's theme; I think it feels appropriate for the site itself. Varkarrus (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2018 (MST)

This has been discussed at length here. Currently, the idea was to wait for a new skin, or some examples of what we were discussing. Since the technical know-how needs to be available to make any of these changes, this is also a defining point about what can, or should, be changed. Currently Blue Dragon does not have time to work on anything like a skin, or experiments in this direction.

Using "repository of fan-made game content" can be misleading since D&D Wiki also hosts the SRD. There must be a clever choice which would fit better.

The banner could be changed, but adding wiki syntax (which also does not fit the page since we use history to mark all the contributions to a page and not an arbitrary system), does not seem technically feasible. If you have some mark-ups for a new banner that would be great.

--Green Dragon (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (MST)

I can see why you think it could be misleading, but I don't see it that way. I interpret that tagline as saying that we primarily host user-generated content, not that we only host user-generated content.

Could you ask BD about making it so that the banner shows up on all pages in Category:User, instead of all pages in the mainspace? The goal here is to stop the banner from showing up on pages where it doesn't belong (for example, the main page). — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:41, 16 December 2018 (MST)

The banners are all on MediaWiki:Common.css. I'm saying that I don't know if we can single out pages by category using CSS. I imagine the next step is to research what CSS could do, maybe try a few things to see if it's possible. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (MST)

Main Page Layout

I find the front page redundant. Varkarrus attempted to get a link for Featured Articles on the right side of the page to help the link be more visible and it wasn't seen with favor. They are onto something though.
The questions were asked, "Why is our link to the Featured Articles page not enough? What additional benefits does this provide, or why is it not just clutter? Maybe, would making the FA page link more prominent fulfill this goal better than an entire list?" and things fizzled from there. Well, we have link to each edition on the left to everything that takes up a majority of the Main Page. So I ask this, is that clutter?
I'd like the Feature Article info to sit higher. Perhaps a layout that instead of the title/header being Main Page, it say Welcome to D&D Wiki and then below that the Recent News box be shown. Below that, the featured articles box. And then we get to what is currently at the top, but replaced by links to pages other than what is already on the left. I think I am proposing major facelift to the main page; it would be nice to execute it along with a background and banner update that keeps getting mentioned. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (MST)

Most of the users who visit D&D Wiki do not view the news items, which change not all that often. In addition most of the news items have little to do with D&D, why most people visit D&D Wiki. The featured articles, although great, have not been really taken oven by the administration (which multiple users have stressed), but seem more like a list of articles which the bureaucrats have still to approve.

The list of featured articles (and how often they change) is very minimal. If this was improved maybe I could agree with this proposal, but currently it would not benefit most of our users.

Technically, I also do not see a way to just change the background and banner on the Main Page. If you have a solution that would be different, but do we really want a background that deviates from the rest of the site? This seems like it would just confuse a lot of users. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2018 (MST)

hmmm.. You hit another topic I have beef with: the recent news. The news can have something to do with D&D; when an article is nominated for featuredness and its success if that occurs, a user is looking for players in a play-by-post campaign, and other significant topics occur. If recent news isn't really looked at because it really isn't used, then is it clutter?

I didn't mean the background to deviate from the site. Perhaps I am confused because I thought I read a need to change our background and the desire to update the site's banners. I do understand that those items (backgrounds and banners) are not just flip of the switch changes. I am not, however, an individual with knowledge to change them.

Some things you mention I would like to discuss more about but I'll use their appropriate talk pages (Featured Articles) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (MST)

using MediaWiki:Sitenotice as a noticeboard

How might people feel about using MediaWiki:Sitenotice as a more visible place for site news, similar to the Fire Emblem wiki? I get that we already have {{News}} on the main page, but let's be real here: a lot of people don't actually go to the main page. If we use this for site news, a lot more people would see that. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:43, 31 January 2019 (MST)

I think I don’t fully understand; what would the difference be? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (MST)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice displays a banner across the top of every page, making it a very visible place to display notifications that users would likely consider important, like MediaWiki updates, community events, and requests for adminship (which the FE wiki doesn't seem to display, though I do think it should be displayed here).

I rarely visit the main page, even though I'm on here nearly every day. I have the {{news}} template watched now, after having edited it, but before I was an admin I never really saw any news on this site because of my infrequent visitation to the main page, and I imagine a good portion of our users are the same, whereas if news was posted to the site notice, it definitely would be seen by everybody that uses the site. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 16:07, 31 January 2019 (MST)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice is very important if something serious comes up, like downtime, updates, etc. I feel that very important messages may, then, seem banal. The news doesn't change that often.

Are you talking about using MediaWiki:Sitenotice to highlight time-critical news items, or items that are deemed more important? For example it would make no sense to have a failed RfA news item on the sitenotice for a few months. The said user would probably be offended. I can see a purpose for using the sitenotice for then defined critical news. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (MST)

I'd rather we used it for only important stuff as GD said. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2019 (MST)

I don't mind an RfA going up when it happens; when it is over I think the notice can be taken down. I wouldn't suggest this for Featureds Articles (just mentioning before it is suggested) because the site notice could become bloated (but I would love something to publicize these more!). But RfAs seem important to me. I've seen past proceedings where users didn't get a chance to vote because they didn't know. I feel I am in between on this, use it for some [important] news but not all news. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (MST)

I agree that FAs shouldn't be put on the site notice; that works well for the FE wiki because of their (relatively) low number of articles and their nature as a factual wiki, but wouldn't work well for us. I don't think I articulated well why I think RfA's should be there but it's basically for the same reason BigShot said. I feel it's important for the community to have a say in who is trusted with admin tools, and this would help to let people know that they *can* have a say.

If we do go this route, how would people feel about also linking to our social media in the site header? I get that we have links to Facebook and Discord on the sidebar, but they're underneath everything else and not super visible. I've made a mockup here of how this could potentially look. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:44, 2 February 2019 (MST)

That header looks quite neat. I can definitely see something like it being helpful for the wiki. Quincy (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2019 (MST)

That seems very obtrusive. We already have a prominent top banner, and other isn't a good idea. Either the table should nearly blend in with the background, or it should just be text. Also, I think the social media links are also obtrusive. If we want them, try adding just a small logo on the edge of the notice. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (MST)

I like the header. Obtrusive may be needed because I wouldn't call that top banner prominent considering how much it is overlooked. The links are no more obtrusive than bold lettering in my opinion.

Replace banner with this header ;) lol ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2019 (MST)

I don't think I'd want that on the top of every page, it's a bit big but also pretty empty. I'd just take the Discord link that's beneath everything else, and move it to beneath the search bar on the side instead. Varkarrus (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (MST)

Varkarrus, what you said is how I meant to describe "obtrusive". It's good that multiple users consider this a concern, so I propose that we should see more examples before we decide on a sitenotice. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (MST)

New Skin

I propose that we implement ConcealedLight's skin even in the beta phase. I have been trying it for over a week now, and haven't encountered any problems. In addition the mobile unfriendlyness with the current skin has been completely resolved. The reason that I propose that we implement the skin as soon as possible is because it does not break on mobile. As ConcealedLight develops the skin more, we can always update the default skin again. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2019 (MST)

Thank you for putting your faith in me. I'll keep trying to improve it in my spare time. If consensus is reached for such an implementation, I'd like to see if it would be possible to add id in the div which contains the div which contains the text, "Home of user-generated, homebrew pages!" so I could target it in the css and centre the text. Another idea I had was having the sidebar headers link to general pages. For example, "Homebrew" would link to the root of all homebrew on the wiki, a place where you could navigate to any editions/systems homebrew content or the "System Ref. Documents" would link to the root of all SRD content on the wiki where you could do the same.
—ConcealedLight (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2019 (MST)

I haven't seen this skin yet, where can I go to check it out? That said, I have faith that Green Dragon is a good judge of this skin so I feel it's likely I'll support it. Varkarrus (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2019 (MST)

To test the skin, copy the contents of this page into your custom sledged.css (Varkarrus) and then set your preferences to use the custom skin. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (MST)

Ah! yep, it works. Looks less different than I was expecting, but it's subtly nicer! Varkarrus (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (MST)

This skin has been implemented site-wide, since it seems to fix the mobile problem. Please report any issues that you encounter! When ConcealedLight's skin has been changed again, we can continue to update it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (MST)

Whoop! I'm pretty excited. Sorry to pester GD but is it possible to insert the id into the div around the slogan so I can style it directly, as the way I'm doing it now is bad practice imo. —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2019 (MST)

No problem, that div has been added. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Thanks but could you move it up by one level so it is in the div outside that. I'd like to squish down the space between the slogan and the logo. —ConcealedLight (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2019 (MST)

Ok, Blue Dragon made this change too. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)

This didn't work out as intended, and he will look into getting the div how you want it again at a later point in time. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (MST)

Thank you. —ConcealedLight (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2019 (MST)

The background has now been changed to match this discussion. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (MST)

Ah, I see. In terms of aesthetics, I believe we should have the bottom 20% of the image decrease in opacity so it doesn't just abruptly cut off and that way we can keep to the wiki's color scheme. Removing the text that appears behind the logo at the top would also be good. —ConcealedLight (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2019 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Can we lighten up the top of the new layout? Or create some contrast between the text and the background? I cannot see the links to my userpage, talkpage, watchlist, etc. ~ BigShotFancyMan ^{talk contributions} 08:05, 12 March 2019 (MDT)

Blue Dragon will make the links white soon. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (MDT)

perfect! thanks :-) ~ BigShotFancyMan ^{talk contributions} 09:17, 12 March 2019 (MDT)

I think we can change the background color from this swampy green back to the original now that we've put the blending in place as the green doesn't match the rest of the wiki. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2019 (MDT)

I would really appreciate more opinions on this, since I like the "non-foggy" background as a highlight for the skin. I am red-green color blind, and maybe it's that but I don't see any problems with the green in the background. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (MDT)

I haven't inputted because I am not really tracking what's being discussed. I see the left side of the skin is blurry, but I don't recall a different background color except for prior to the new skin. The contrast between the skin and "info boxes" (?) is an eye sore but hasn't affected my experience. Maybe other users are in my position too; not 100% what is being discussed. ~ BigShotFancyMan ^{talk contributions} 06:55, 19 March 2019 (MDT)

If others could share their experience it would be appreciated as this conversation is fairly important. —ConcealedLight (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

Could we please revert to the old theme? The new one looks, well...I worry what impression the aesthetics might give newcomers. I don't want to be rude here, as I know it can be difficult to design effective and good-looking websites, but IMO this theme sends the wrong message. If gray distracting background images (i.e. the one I warned months ago wouldn't look as a background, simply because it's too noisy and not because of any personal dislike of the map), disjointed sidebars that violate standard sidebar design and the principle of proximity, and clashing dirty white background colors are a contemporary design trend, please do ignore me. That's just my two cents, at any rate.--GamerAim (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Edit: I see that the Sledged theme was REPLACED? Could the real Sledged be restored and a new (default, if you must) theme be made for CL's theme? If this new theme does remain, I'd at least prefer an option to go back to the old one. Besides, Sledged was named after the user who made it. Let CL name his own theme :P--GamerAim (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

I'll provide some context since you seem confused about a few things. I've been working on a css skin for the site, showed GD and others and they seemed to believe it was an improvement. I plan to continue working on it, however, I've only recently gotten back from my hiatus and am I still catching up on my other wiki work. Next, I had no hand in the background, it is CW's creation and if you read up it is clear that I don't like it and prefer the old theme. I've asked multiple times for other users formally and informally to share their opinion as GD is red-green color blind but no one has. Lastly, I do actually appriate you bringing this up as I have been so bogged down catching up I'd forgotten about the background issue. —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

If you read the whole discussion it is apparent that this skin fixes a serious mobile problem. It's not just esthetics, but also function. "Form follows function" haha. I find this skin an esthetic improvement, and it removes potentially non fair-use background problems. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

Aye, I do appreciate you trying to catch me up. I understand that this theme (supposedly; I haven't tested) is better on mobile. Of course, function is important, which is why I only ask that I be allowed to use the old theme, since mobile functionality isn't a concern for me. Naturally, I appreciate you trying to improve the user experience of our visitors and appreciate you taking my critique under fair consideration. It seems you and I agree on more than I thought, and that pleases me :)

Let me know if you want help with anything, CL. It's been awhile since we collaborated! If I have any ideas, I'll of course let you and GD know here. The concern about our old background being a potential legal issue is totally valid, and I never did find a more suitable one... Anyhow, take care <3 --GamerAim (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

What would you both say to putting together a new background in line with the original? That way the issue of thematics and legality are solved. —ConcealedLight (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

Locking Product Identity Pages

I think we should protect product identity pages (such as those at Category:Elemental Evil Player's Companion) to prevent users replacing them with the actual text-under-copyright (this happened here). Marasmusine (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2019 (MDT)

We've been doing this as things are added or came across. (i.e. races & and non-SRD spells) ~ BigShotFancyMan ^{talk contributions} 07:58, 12 March 2019 (MDT)

I agree with this. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (MDT)

Just a thought about that, if somebody does do that, and it is reverted, the copyrighted text would still be in the log, and would thus still be a copyright violation, right? So, can edits like that be removed from the log (or at least the exact text of the edit)? Rorix the White (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (MDT)

It is possible for admins to hide that text from normal users, yes. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:05, 18 March 2019 (MDT)

Ok, just concerned about a possible hole in the system. Rorix the White (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (MDT)

Curated Lists

What is our position on curated lists like 3.5e New Weapons (3.5e Other)? I think that if there is no theme - it's just a list of things the user likes - it should go in their userspace. If there is a theme or something tying them together, it could be a small sourcebook. Marasmusine (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (MDT)

I agree if there's no theme it probably belongs on a userpage. ~ BigShotFancyMan ^{talk contributions} 07:11, 15 March 2019 (MDT)

Agree. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (MDT)

Moved Talk Page Missing

I've noticed that the move talk page tick box isn't present when I try to move a page. Or it is there for a second before vanishing. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? —ConcealedLight (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

I've been experiencing this issue for a while now. Blue Dragon knows about it and was looking into it, last I heard. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:11, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

Page Appreciation

On PickleJarPete's talk page they mention a lack of positivity for the wiki. That the site comes off really negative and I find it hard to disagree. A lot of us spend time curating and templating pages. Not so much time informing others of their good works unless it is QAs or FAs, or a RfA for a user where their critiqued.
PJP suggests a button or an upvote like other sites. I'm curious if there's any interest in this, mostly by Green Dragon because I think such a thing would ultimately be their decision. ~ BigShotFancyMan 22:15, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

This has been discussed before, and it has been relatively well received. The problem, of course, is that no adequate extension has been researched. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (MDT)

There's 5 extensions for page rating here, but all of them allow downvotes too. I imagine someone could tweak one to not allow downvoting. I'm sure the code behind all of them is Kinda Simple and I could probably figure it out but I'm quite busy with school. I'll consider finding the time to tweak one if nobody else steps up to bat? Varkarrus (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (MDT)

As an aside, this extension also looks like it'd be really good for page appreciation. Looks better and more user friendly than using the talk page. Varkarrus (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (MDT)

Thanks for finding some examples Vark. I like Semantic Rating & VoteNY the most. The one you mentioned is user friendly looked like a comment rating extension (?). I wish there were images of these to see the interface of them. ~ BigShotFancyMan 08:54, 28 March 2019 (MDT)

We need one where a user can easily rate the page on a certain metric, and that calculates them together. Also, if a page has been overhauled then we need to be able to reset the ratings. None of these extensions go about offering this. I found one that was pretty close before, and I'll see if I can find it again. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (MDT)

Actually it may have been the VoteNY. Does each user need to edit the page to submit a rating, or how are they recorded? Editing each page is probably unrealistic for the most part. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (MDT)

It just adds a voting template to pages. Users choose a star for rating and it records it; no editing needed. Varkarrus (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2019 (MDT)

Okay, Blue Dragon installed VoteNY. I propose that we test it out in a section like 5e Races or 5e Classes, to make sure that it meets our expectations. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (MDT)

I looked over the Mass edit using regular expressions but couldn't quite figure things out. Would a mass edit also fix preloads? Or would those need manually changed? ~ BigShotFancyMan 10:38, 12 April 2019 (MDT)

I found Replace Text page and did execute a change on the 5e Traps to test this. I hope I don't break anything :p ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:17, 12 April 2019 (MDT)

You can look at the 5e traps and see where the voting was placed (bottom), I added it to the Necromancer (5e Class) at the top. My opinion and suggestion for an [maybe] easier way to implement the thing is including it the MAIN namespace, on the right side of the namespace. I think the stars at the top help see them right away instead of scrolling down. Alright, enough double posts for me. I'll await other's input :) ~ BigShotFancyMan 13:31, 12 April 2019 (MDT)

Is there objection to placing the vote thingy on the preloads? ~ BigShotFancyMan 12:33, 19 April 2019 (MDT)

I'd support that. People can remove it if they want when they go and make the race.--Yanied (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (MDT)

Of course if we end up adding it to the bottom of pages then we should have it there on the preload. I like the top of pages, but that takes more work to get it added it seems like. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (MDT)

I started the 5e Races. The 5e Preload is included in the automated part so future ones should be good too, assuming that is. 11:35, 8 May 2019 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

In regards to the vote placement, I had tested what happens if a vote is removed, and re-added it in case people wanted to reset a pages vote score. The scores don't reset because the scores is tied to data storage somewhere (?). How this relates to the placement is that since the races are getting it, if people prefer them at the top, they can be moved and scores won't be reset or changed (as far as I can tell with my miniscule test a few weeks ago.) ~ BigShotFancyMan 13:13, 8 May 2019 (MDT)

I'd like to formally reiterate my opposition to this being done (as I just found out). It serves no tangible benefit. Quality articles can already be nominated as such or as featured articles. This scoring system only further allows negativity by down-voting articles for petty or political reasons. Our previous systems only had the capacity to highlight good articles, whereas maintenance templates could be used to explain to viewers why exactly an article might be unsuitable for use. Now, articles can just be subjectively downvoted with no benefit to editors or viewers.--GamerAim (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Someone mentioned that the reason the old system "didn't work" (my words, not hers) is that users couldn't be bothered to nominate articles. What if we streamlined the process? I'm pretty sure we can create a button in the top-left of an article that will quickly add a nomination on the article's talk page.

It'd also be convenient if there was some way to, like, put a list of currently-nominated articles in the sidebar (does the sidebar support DPLs?). That way, the nominations get some visibility.--GamerAim (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

I imagine most users consider it, a quick way to give their impression on a page. I consider it useful for now, but as time progresses my opinion could well change. Probably a lot of users agree with me? Very interestingly, Foreclaimers (5e Race) was created only a few days ago now with 8 five star votes... --Green Dragon (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

I'll voice my opinion here and say that for the moment I don't think it is beneficial. I feel it is fair to say that I have the most experience with the 5e Races section of which this new feature is being tested and I've found that it doesn't meet the expectations under which it was implemented. Without significant changes to the way the voting system works in order to prevent abuse and to maintain a score that is accurate to the pages current revision as well as its implementation on the site, I don't think my opinion will change. Given this was implemented under the premise of being a test when is this test to be concluded as it has been almost a month since its initial implementation on the 8th of May? —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

I believe the rating system to damage the moral and intellectual integrity of D&D Wiki.

1) A rating system does not require rationale or constructive critique to justify itself, therefore it is unreliable for determining anything tangible about the article. A "quick way to give their impression on a page" is not necessarily a benefit. You consider it useful in what regard? How do editors and visitors actually benefit from an arbitrary rating that has no rationale to back it up?

2) In a community as heated as this one can get, it also opens the door for abuse. Do not think that the users here are above downvoting articles just to attack particular authors independent of the article's content. Or even above meat-puppeting (is that the right term?) support for their articles.

3) The justification of "page appreciation" seems to stem from a desire for ego-stroking along the same lines as those users who want to plaster their own names over articles. If users so desperately need validation, they can always post on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., as those platforms already have built-in systems for popularity contests. DM's Guild and other venues also serve for users who want more tangible appreciation for their efforts.

You have always maintained that D&D Wiki is not a democracy, but this only serves to democratize what used to be a system of constructive criticism. If users were too lazy to critique an article before, what incentive do they have now? The easy way is not always the right way.--GamerAim (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

These are all valid points. I'd sway either way, since I understand the seriousness of what is said but I also see the simplicity in such a rating system. Why don't we go ahead and make a news item saying that the page appreciation test is over, and the final consensus is all that is left now? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

sounds a lot more like an old fuddy dud resistant to change. If you want to stay relevant you have to change sometimes. Regardless of internet search results, we are far from the popular choice for homebrew. A simple voting system to quickly assess an opinion for a page hardly seems hurtful. Of course there can be exceptions to meaningful votes; just like there are exceptions to good templates.

All CLs objection is that the voting system can infringe on the way he molds article to his liking curate pages. Can you imagine a page with with templates from CL but it has a dozen 5 star votes!?

And Twas no test. The text replacement didn’t hit every race page like it did for Traps. In addition, a suitable way to place the vote wasn’t found.

Change is good. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and I’d say the current way is broke. It at least isn’t working. ~ BigShotFancyMan 09:47, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

As I just argued with GA in DMs, the rating system is a quick, simple, way for anyone to share their opinion/approval of a page. Apparently there is concern that it doesn’t require or allow commentary but there is hardly any of that anyways. Voting didn’t replace anything. Users can still share their thoughts. One negative is troll votes. Oh no.
The votes don’t feed into a trending articles page, they aren’t being used for popular things, they don’t make article Featured Articles. Literally, it’s a few stars at the top or bottom of a page. It isn’t trying to be like another site or app or etc but providing the entire community which is bigger than this website an option they like to use. That’s why I say if you got half a dozens reasons to fight this, there’s a bigger issue. Argument for the sake of argument. The most relevant argument (and other negative) against is that you can’t keep the vote relevant to the most recent revision. ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:10, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

1) Please do not call me "an old fuddy dud."

2) D&D Wiki is as relevant as it has always been. Just because other websites host homebrew does not mean that we are stagnant or need to compete with them. People are free to post wherever suits them; historically-speaking, trying to appeal to everyone has the effect of appealing to no one.

3) It isn't hurtful? How is it helpful? Because someone gets their ego stroked by 5-star ratings that say nothing about the article? What happens when someone gets their article 1-starred without being told why? Am I to believe that the emotional effects of this system only go one way? If I worked hard on something, the last thing I'd want is anonymous people saying they dislike it without telling me why. It'd be disheartening and exactly the kind of behavior we (as in you and I personally, together) have discouraged.

4) Are the opinions expressed in the ratings valuable? How so? They might say what users like, but not exactly what or why. Are you going to analyze this data and apply it somehow? Homebrew is complex and there's lots of different kinds. People have different tastes, some good, some bad. Will you be using the ratings to target content to visitors? I hear a lot of talk about quickly assessing opinions for a page, but not how this is beneficial to editors or visitors, nor any acknowledgement of the potential drawbacks.

5) I don't understand the point you're making about CL. It sounds like you're saying the ratings are good because they'll invalidate CL's opinions? But please, clarify that.

6) If our way of doing things is broken, how is it broken, what are we trying to achieve, and what can we try differently? I understand that this was a valuable suggestion - as all suggestions are - but maybe we should step back and consider the practical implications of it. I also know that you've complained other users didn't give opinions on this or provide alternatives. But I'm back, BSFM, and I'm willing to work together to find a solution to problems. So please, talk to me, and let's see what we can come up with :) --GamerAim (2:0) (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

I looked at the foreclaimers...not sure why there is an issue with how many votes it has: users like it. Are people unhappy with how many votes a new article got? After looking at it, users could simply like the concept. They can set aside the ASI issue or non-5e trait wording. But in a general sense, they like the page. Which is really all the votes show, how well liked an article is. It isn’t implying an article is perfect or ready FAN, people just like it. Just because a user thinks it isn’t good because of unconventional things doesn’t mean user have to dislike the page. ~ BigShotFancyMan 14:02, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

I agree with BSFM that the voting system is mostly to show that people like pages in a quick and easy-to-access manner. It's just appreciating it in the end, I guess, and that just shows the preference of people on the wiki. They like some overpowered stuff. It doesn't say much for the playability but if the end goal was simple acknowledgement that some people like something, I think it serves the purpose at minimum.--Yanied (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

Then we should, at the least, hold out until we find a simple up-voting plugin, if providing nebulous "likes" is the only goal this rating system. As is, it's like using a screwdriver to hammer nails... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GamerAim (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 June 2019‎ (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Is there an extension that does that? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

I think the current extension is capable. Please see the sandbox history for the change I made and if this would be a good alternative to discuss consensus. ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:33, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

Personally I like upvotes/likes/counts much more than a star rating. If the goal is page appreciation (and not quality judgement), then I think this is the better way to do it. Really nice work. - Guy 11:47, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

If a help page is written explaining the purpose of the counter - for those who do not know why it's there - I will support it. As you've told me, it's to gauge general interest in a page/concept (which, actually, could be used by editors to prioritize fixing up articles if they're looking to do so). You may also note that expressing "appreciation" is another benefit, of course :) --GamerAim (2:0) (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

Thanks Guy, I like this more myself.

GA, that doesn’t sound bad. I may be able to do that. thanks. ~ BigShotFancyMan 13:22, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Your example is very confusing. It took me a while before I could understand what it was trying to make me do. I like the idea that we make a help page detailing how the rating system is intended to function, rather than the example in the sandbox. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

The star ratings are important since they offer the chance to say that the page is not good, and that it needs some work in their opinion. Just a "support" click isn't as useful as the stars, and like I said terribly confusing. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

I don't disagree about the stars informing better...I-I...just got the impression 1 & 2 stars hurt feelings and we didn't want to do that and that a support click was more desirable since it ultimately communicated what people were interested in, an easy way to identify liked pages. My theory is that barbarian has 1 star because it had 1 vote. The fact it has 1 star vote at the moment, isn't a reflection of how it was rated, but rather the extension just assigned the number after the format was changed.

I apologize for not taking time earlier to explain. (I was putting in some very extensive hours for another job and had quite poor internet) The green box counts how many people have voted for the page. A vote simply communicates a like. You click vote and the count goes up. You click unvote, and the count goes down. You don't have to edit the format to vote. I am not trying to speak down about this either. I sort of thought a green box with a number that increases when you click vote was a simple feature. :/ ~ BigShotFancyMan 09:03, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

The current consensus is that this is hard to use as it is is only presented by Green Dragon which hardly seems consensus but more like the owner flexing. If you don't like or want it fine let it be so but can we not pretend to be having conversations of introducing an option? ~ BigShotFancyMan 09:07, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

I'm not against it, it just needs to be discussed more before being changed. First, you can't unvote if you didn't vote. Thus, it's just a tally system in effect.

Multiple users have said they dislike this entire extension (CL, GA) and haven't changed anything with this proposal, unless an extension is found. Probably we need to wait a bit for them?

Yanied and yourself have said that changing this to your proposal is interesting, and should be tried.

I have said that it seems to be confusing and "disliking" a page is not possible.

I may have gotten something wrong, but based off this we should at least be holding off on this for now. How are you looking at the consensus here? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

The idea you can't unvote (downvote) unless you upvote was liked by Varkarrus and I couldn't disagree with their opinion. Other platforms that go this route suffer from trolls downvoting/unvoting for simply doing it and being -insert expletive of ones choosing-.

CL seemed more bothered it happened without more input. In addition, they aren't a fan of the possibility of pages being upvoted when they are in need of help. My rebuttal is that, a page doesn't need to be perfect for users to like it. Perhaps it is the lore regardless of spelling and grammar they enjoy or the flavor of said article. Pages that are liked despite flaws may get the attention they need to be improved.

I feel GA will change their opinion about supporting the simple upvote in light of recent events but at one point they were okay with this version rather than stars as long as an article explained it and its purpose. (To Do list)

GD wants more conversation, clarity, and consensus. Other than my example being a poor experience, I didn't gather it shouldn't be used.

Guy, Vark, Yanied, BSFM like the vote or at least I see it that way. With a conditional GA, and not really opposed GD, I took this as a consensus with CL being the only vocal opposed user. And I know its not a vote; I didn't think CLs concerns carried enough weight to disrupt a perceived consensus.

This is my perspective of where we come to now. I have patience, and every time I wait nothing happens. When I act, I feel stone walled. (Other areas this happens too, Discord Moderators just off the top of my head!) So I shall wait for conversation and consensus. ~ BigShotFancyMan 09:39, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

To confirm, I do prefer a "like button" over a "star rating." If it is a choice between those two options, I overwhelmingly prefer the like button. - Guy 10:23, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

Discord moderators are just waiting for it be written out. Someone needs to do this, right, but I don't know if "stonewalled" is the right analogy.

Vark hasn't commented on the one vote proposal. Guy did mention it's a step in the right direction (now overwhelmingly).

I would be interested in hearing CLs opinion about this, and I doubt it's hard to get that (I doubt that GA will comment more before a consensus is reached).

I don't really mind it either way. Obviously I find that one vote is quite cumbersome for users, but if no one sees this as an issue then I can't say too much more.

Since consensus isn't a democracy it's important to get all the opinions on this. If anyone can comment, it's appreciated. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

I understand typing this up doesn't fix issues, but I want to get it started so it is ready if consensus passes to use the upvote method. Please discuss on the page itself or its discussion page ideas and suggestions so this discussion can stay on topic. Help: Vote ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:01, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

To give my opinion on the matter. I believe the voting system in its concurrent forms seems to introduce more problems than its worth and doesn't adequately address the issue. If we go back to the beginning the purpose of the system's introduction was to be able to show appreciation for pages. Looking at both forms they do in a way communicate appreciation, little votes that fire off dopamine and make a user feel as if their contribution is being seen and hopefully well received.

The first system is closer to addressing the issue but is easily open to abuse/ vandalism, inaccuracy and misinterpretation as well as being unconstructive to the improvement of the page. The second system is further from addressing the issue but has almost all the issues of the latter except maybe abuse/ vandalism but I can't say I've tested this. Overall without significant changes to the way the voting system works and its implementation on the site, I don't believe they are worth the trouble. So while I can see some sort of system of validation being beneficial I don't see the current suggested methods as that system.

As I write this now I am reminded of how Homebrewery validates its users via page views. Which I feel if presented and done right solves the issues the other suggested methods have. —ConcealedLight (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

I am not sure how "page views" validate a pages appreciation or show a community likeness.

What problems have been introduced via the voting schemes though? ~ BigShotFancyMan 13:02, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

*bump*   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   12:41, 10 July 2019 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

MediaWiki removed the page count feature quite a while ago. So, adding this now would only display the page views from a certain day onwards (I assume). To summarize, I like the 5 star rating. If I am right, then it's hard for anyone to reach concensus about a certain implementation scheme. Is there a scheme which everyone finds appropriate, or maybe this should be put to a vote? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (MDT)

I personally found no problem with the star rating (though i do understand its potential for abuse). This simple vote system lacks the same ability to be abused I suppose, at the very least. Counting page views doesn't necessarily reflect how people feel about a page in my opinion. It's like YouTube views. People may watch and hate it.--Yanied (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2019 (MDT)

I would appreciate either system. Nothing is perfect so I don't feel it is justified to not use something, anything, to let people get these endorphin pings that our culture has come to enjoy/appreciate. I am not opposed to putting it to a vote since it could be just the thing needed to wrap up the conversation.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   07:22, 12 July 2019 (MDT)

If you are still open to a vote GD, do you want a discussion page created for it? Votes to be recorded as part of this thread here? Or is there another way to switch gears from conversation to voting?   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   12:36, 25 July 2019 (MDT)

I hate the rating thing because of several reasons, and they come in a theme. 1) There is no purpose in it. All it does is hurt and put down. 2) If there's going to be a rating thing, there's going to be users who abuse that and just say 1-star because it's not how they play or because it doesn't work for their game, even though we all know taste are different from person to person, along with gameplay and storytelling. 3) If you're biggest pro for the rating system is "I like 5 star rating", then you need to think of all the people on here who didn't get that. Who just want to be liked or to have their pages liked, and then they look on the page and they see 1 star on their rating thing. That would crush them. Maybe make them leave. In summary, there is no point in letting this rating system continue except to hurt, and I know I'm dredging up something from half a year ago, but this needs to be said, even now that it is over and the system is in effect. Please remove the rating. Flamestarter (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter

It seems like there are a lot of mixed feelings about the system. It maybe seems like a vote would do this justice, since I don't think we can reach consensus based off all the mixed views? --Green Dragon (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (MST)

Rather than a simple first-past-the-post vote, I think it's important to consider the three options presented here: star rating, like button, or nothing at all.

I'm unsure I clearly presented that [nothing] is what I think is best, but would sooner accept Likes than Stars. After having the system for a little while and reading Flamestarter's input, my position on this matter has only grown more resolute. I believe star ratings are a detriment for contributors and consumers alike. - Guy 06:47, 6 December 2019 (MST)

Oh, yay! I'm helping! I agree with Guy that nothing is the best option. I don't even like the like/dislike system, really. But if that's unavoidable, I can live with it. Just not stars. Flamestarter (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2019 (MST)Flamestarter

It's not a like/dislike system iirc. It's just a like button, so if you like it, you click. If not, you don't do anything. Or at least that would be the best way to appease both sides, imo. I personally deal with harsher rating systems like the star system so I have nothing against it. That could just be me.--Yanied (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (MST)

Basically the extension I linked to below, Mark as Helpful is a much more eloquent way of "liking a page" then a weird green box with some number in it, which most users probably don't even know what it's supposed to be for. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2019 (MST)

My problem with converting the stars into a button is that it's visually confusing, and doesn't do what it's trying to do well at all. Just a quick search led me this. Although it's not standalone (we would have to find the correct alternative) I think it would actually accomplish it's goal. Something like this is what I would recommend. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (MST)

I think if you wanna dredge up a 6 month topic it'd be good to read the whole post.

The purpose is mentioned.

Anything can be abused; even RfAs can be abused. This entire site gets abused daily but we keep it.

Again, the whole thread was not read otherwise it'd be known it isn't about "getting 5 stars."

Currently, the Necromancer (5e Class) has a caption next to its rating. I am not sure why something couldn't be by the green box if stars are not desired (which I understand why). Like Yanied says, it isn't a downvote system; it is simply like or move on. In addition to the same page, it has 26 votes. 26 people took the time to make a simple click to give their opinion. Find a page with 26 different reviews. (You might be able to but I hope you get my point instead of trying to argue "Ha BSFM I found a page"). Also, how has the site been hurt in 6 months by the voting? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is bad. Similarly, just because I do like it doesn't mean it helps, but from what I've seen the thing hasn't hurt or helped. It just exists and is kinda neat to see pages that get votes in my opinion. It is serving its purpose. A quick way for users to signify their like (or not) or rating for a page without typing up some review that who knows if it will get responded to because of how the wiki operates in general. Heck, Guy was surprised I was even watching an article of his! "I have spoken."   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   09:19, 9 December 2019 (MST)

Copyright Notice

Would anyone object if I changed the copyright notice at the bottom of the site to read as follows:

"Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License except where otherwise specified."

We technically support licenses other than GFDL and OGL, and I feel this language is more "professional." — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 00:42, 1 April 2019 (MDT)

Where can you just change it? My understanding is that the language is programed in from on the GNU FDL legal team, and bundled together with MW. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (MDT)

The page MediaWiki:Copyright. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:49, 1 April 2019 (MDT)

Yes, your wording changes are fine for me. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2019 (MDT)

Page title policy

Are we using wikipedia's policy on page titles?. There is a page currently being edited for a class ostensibly called an "anomaly", but because of the weird characters in the title, you can't navigate to the page by searching for "anomaly", wikilinking to it is vexing, and it makes looking at Recent Changes quite irritating. Marasmusine (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (MDT)

I haven’t found any policy taking issue with the title, to my demise. I did read that titles with characters not found on the keyboard should have a page created using the characters found on the keyboard and made a redirect to the title page with special characters so users can search for it. ~ BigShotFancyMan 23:48, 1 May 2019 (MDT)

Maybe?

“

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

”

I agree that the page name is very unwieldy. Not only does it make other lines hard to read, it doesn't seem to really serve a purpose other than to give a twist to the page itself. Wouldn't it then make more sense to just keep the text on the page and use a common page title? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (MDT)

Specifically "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (MDT)

Quality Articles

I'm currently focused on getting Quality Article lists on all the 5e homebrew indexes (I'm not touching other editions). I encourage all experienced editors to add {{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}} on the talk page of articles they think are "ready for play", and to comment at the nominees already listed at D&D Wiki:Featured Articles#D&D Wiki's Quality Articles. Marasmusine (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

Oh, just balanced and whatnot? I thought it had extra reqs to be QA.--Yanied (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

They just need to be 1) Well written, 2) Balanced, 3) Suitable for any campaign. Such that a visitor can pick one out in confidence that it is fit-for-purpose. A QA might only be one sentence long if that's all that's needed to describe it. Marasmusine (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (MDT)

Let's talk about Backgrounds

If people could weigh in on the discussion here it would be great: Background Features with Mechanical Benefits. Thanks. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2019 (MDT)

Musicus Meter

So, I have a few questions.

• How do you get a meter like the Musicus on your race?
• What exactly does it count, like, what's its scoring method?
• Who judges it?

I would like an answer as fast as humanly possible, thank you very much. Have a good day!

Ok, so, I looked it over and never mind. But I think I did well with my Cofagrigus race, right in my range, a 5.5 but I'm not sure I did it right... --Flamestarter (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (MST)

Later yo

Finally not feeling too overwhelmed to close things up here. Thanks to y'all for the fun times, sorry again for the ways it ended. I really do hope it's all goin' well and fun for everyone, and continues to be <3 --SgtLion (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (MDT)

Variant Policy Suggestion

I, as a person that watches the recent changes page a lot, come into contact with variants far more often than I should. Most of the time, these are simply copied, buffed, or changed slightly in ways that make a variant completely pointless, as 99% of the time, changes can just be made to the original.

As such, I believe that we should have a much more strict policy on variants. Below is a document, which would outline new rules for page variants, specifically what warrants them and how many can be around. It is something of a work in progress, and likely to change, although I doubt by much. I am fully willing to explain all of my reasoning for parts of this, if need be.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_gynpH3a_jZmOARHw7vqrgexI3BTz6pfiIP5lNh-VTE/edit

I Implore anyone and everyone to voice their thoughts on the potential implementation of this. --SwankyPants (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (MST)

While I agree with the sentiment and believe page variants should have guidelines to ensure that we're not simply seeing the same thing over and over again, I also feel that to artificially quantify an 'acceptable' number of variants would be rather restrictive. Instead of limiting variants by number, we should instead outline and clarify the difference between a copy and a variant - the first being, obviously, a copy with minimal edits, and the second being a page with a moderately (or entirely) different concept. After all, there are far more concepts that could be attached to a certain class name than can be catalogued, and we don't want to shut down someone's vision before it's even begun. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (MST)

I like the defining of what major changes are to make a unique page, which would fulfill the definitions of what is an acceptable 'variant' and a shameless 'copy.' As futureproofing I'm hoping that inspiration won't be squashed. But given the wiki editing grace period for observation, I guess this is a minimal worry. The weird number 2 sounds arbitrary, but that could just be preference. This policy would also need a section on the class construction page (whether or not people will read it) so that users will know of variant deletion, as well as be encouraged to be more creative.--Yanied (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (MST)

The "No 3rd Variants or Beyond" part is mostly personal belief, but I feel there's generally good reason behind it. For 1st variants on the wiki, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that it would fit into the proposed requirements, but past that point, things get iffy. 2nd variants are almost always a response to changes or needless buffs, and once you hit 3rd Variant, abandon all hope of balanced content. At that point, it's either very persistent users or an incredibly popular thing people are hellbent on making stronger(see kitsune, vampires, and summoners). The limit could easily be removed if it does get implemented, although I feel there is reason not to. --SwankyPants (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2021 (MST)

First, ask why do users make varients. I think it is because one of two things: they don't want to edit someone's work or a user doesn't want others to edit a page.

Making a varient is a pretty simple way to avoid edits wars and conflicts. It is tedious work templating copies and removing them when a user doesn't return but it really isn't hurting anything AND again, it prevents discourse.

Imagine telling users they can't make a page because we have too many with that name. "Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?" So what stops a user from naming the 4th copy of something a different name yet its structure is essentially one of the copies? Nothing against this rule.

I get the idea here, but I think allowing varients is fine. Red Leg Leo (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (MST)

Not once have I said I don't want variants to be around(hell, I've worked on two myself), it's more about the general quality of these variants. If it's just the same version of a page that already exists, sometimes just a stronger version, it doesn't really have a right to exist as is. When people keep making variants like this, it adds nothing to the wiki, and is simply the recycling of pre-existing content which only furthers the wiki's bad reputation for content such as this.

In my time doing janitorial work for the wiki, the only parts of a lot of pages that cause discourse are the variants themselves. 90% of the time they are just stronger copies that come out of the blue, no edit wars, no angry people in talk pages, no nothing. I understand there may be little harm in them (potentially, iirc part of the bad reputation comes from DMs that don't know any better allowing whatever), but it doesn't make them harmless. This policy would simply seek to better give us the ability to rid ourselves of them with extreme prejudice.

Also, in this hypothetical situation where a user wants to make a 4th variant, under these guidelines, I doubt it would ever hit that point. In my time, I have never seen even three different versions(one original, two variants) which are all wholly unique, or at least unique enough to fit under the proposed guidelines. Very few pages are that popular, and when they are popular enough for that amount of variants, they sure as hell never do fit it. Again, the limit could just be removed, but I see merit in keeping it around. Also, there was a whole sentence on the "no sneaky names" thing, kinda comes from the whole Chaos Knight (5e Class)/Demonic Knight (5e Class) problem that came up around the time I wrote that. Essentially, the latter was just an earlier version of former which wasn't caught for months.

I understand the dislike of this as a policy, but you have to understand I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard. --SwankyPants (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (MST)

"I don't intend on ridding the wiki of variants, just holding them to a much higher standard." then do that without telling users they can't make more varients. There's no accusation of you saying you want to remove varients altogether either, just limit them. I don't know, this quote I started with, is what is being done or should be done. Articles in general should be treated like this quote says. "no sneaky names" is subjective and one would have to prove users intent with their article names and the admins here have itchy trigger fingers, just poised to warn users without even understanding policy. I digress.

It's not like I enjoy seeing 9th varient Saiyan race/class either. Its the foresight to see users unknown to the wiki's policies create them and then an admin delete it, and they don't understand because admins aren't using edit summaries to communicate or talk pages, and a user repeats an action and now the admin warns them. Like, this policy to me is just more help for already aggressive admins that want to "Ban Hammer" users. Where as my thoughts are this wiki is suppose to be where users, aka people...human beings, have a place to bring their ideas and the community help curate them. Not turn around and say, naw you can't do that. We already have 2 of those. Or 3, or 4! whatever arbitrary amount fills your hearts content :-) Red Leg Leo (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (MST)

I agree with Leo's analysis of the situation, apart from the fact that he keeps using the misspelling "varient". Swanky's proposal seems good in theory, but like Leo said, whatever number we choose to cap number of variants at will inevitably be arbitrary. I feel we should simply continue as we have been, tagging and removing pages which are near identical to another one. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:00, 5 March 2021 (MST)