User talk:Admin/Archive 3

← Archive 2

| Archive 3 |

Archive 4 →

Discussion topics for 3rd party content

Xanathar's Guide to Everything has the subclass Arcane Archer. I am curious if it'd be appropriate to put on the discussion page some home rules I found on Reddit that make the subclass legit good vs. a subclass you just don't feel sure about. (think how PH ranger feels vs UA ranger). BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2018 (MST)

If it is something on Reddit, please don't post it here unless you wrote it. I don't know their licensing situation. I also have no idea what talk page you want to post it on. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (MST)

Looking at reddit's user agreement, under the section "your content," they state "You retain the rights to your copyrighted content or information that you submit to reddit..." It's not okay to copy-paste or repeat verbatim something you found on reddit unless you have permission from the person who wrote it. It might be okay to restate the idea in your own words (disclaimer: IANAL), but it would be best to err on the side of caution and either ask permission to reproduce the content or just not reproduce it at all. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:34, 22 January 2018 (MST)

@Green Dragon, the Xanathar's Guide to Everything talk page, and it isn't like a homebrew class or and entire piece of work. It is some rule variations to the Arcane Archer subclass features that I'd think others could benefit. I'd of course be paraphrasing because I haven't the slightest clue what was said verbatim. I figured there'd be an issue with WoTC copyright stuff if anything, not what a post on Reddit says :/ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2018 (MST)

This whole site is full of modified WotC copyright stuff, so I'm not sure what the issue would be. There's nothing wrong with being inspired by a reddit post either, which is what it sounds like you mean. And are you talking about this page? Please don't add homebrew to that page's talk page, as it's not the proper place. If you want to create a homebrew variant of the Arcane Archer, you can! Just use the (5e Subclass Variant) page ID and the normal subclass preload. Again: variants of WotC content are many and allowed on D&D Wiki, so don't worry about it :) --GamerAim (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2018 (MST)

No no, I am not going for Arcane Archer variant. The rest is correct. I will post to my talk page, but I would prefer it be somewhere people would actually seek the information out to where it could be helpful for their gameplay. If I cannot, so be it, it is why I asked. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2018 (MST)

You are right that "inspired" WotC content is not the same as possible "errata" for Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Since you are not copying anything verbatim, just add the errata into your userspace, and we will add a link from the XGtE page to your userspace under a "Homebrew Errata" title. End reason is that your page is also important, and many people may want to see it alonside the information about the XGtE book. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2018 (MST)

Thank you both. I've got links on my user space (I think, that is not the same thing as talk page I assume). If I haven't done this correctly, I'd love to learn what was meant. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2018 (MST)

Vloging

i have a serious question i want to review some of the races and classes on this site on my YouTube channel but im afraid of copyright and things like that.so yeah help me out with that plz Alucarddragonborn (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2018 (MST)

That is totally fine, and encouraged. The GNU FDL license works just fine with such a thing. You should mention the main contributor's for the page though. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2018 (MST)

Are there any pages in particular you were considering? SirSprinkles (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2018 (MST)

For the first video i was thinking i would do the overlord class the dark knight class and the arcane archer classes just to name a few.Alucarddragonborn (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (MST)

Working your way through the Favored Articles might be a good idea. They're intended to be the best of what we've got to offer. --Salasay ♄ 19:18, 2 February 2018 (MST)

D&D Wiki was down for a few hours last night

Should I be worried? Quincy (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (MST)

Sorry that this took so long to attend to. Blue Dragon is on vacation and was not available at the time this happened. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2018 (MST)

Collapsible Windows

Mr. Curious over here, is formatting discussions like the Talk:Decidueye (5e Race) page beneficial for the wiki? (like loading speed) I am not sure if it's just resistance to change for me or there's reasonable concern that formatting pages like this is tedious to make extra "clicks" to see different discussions. thanks BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2018 (MST)

It does seem like a good idea to archive discussion when it is no longer relevant, though I've mostly seen people throw it onto a separate page. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 09:08, 6 March 2018 (MST)

I agree to remove irrelevant discussions. Not sure that applies to race/class talk pages is all. I'd rather it be collapsible than another page though lol loading times are a pain! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2018 (MST)

No kidding Alucarddragonborn (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2018 (MST)

You may choose to do this, but the recommended formatting from Wikipedia is to archive past discussions. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2018 (MST)

Great to know. Thanks GD. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2018 (MST)

Computer software/Video game, also commercial

Hi, similar to Vlogging question:

• Do You allow implementation of Your work in proprietary computer games(cRPG), mobile apps(games, DM aid/helpers), interactive encyclopedia/spell book etc? OGL has Section 8(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f).
• How does it look like with GNU FDL? Do i need written permission of every contributor? Or is it automatic?
• Do i need attribute every contributor or dandwiki.com is enough? What is the proper form of attribution?

Sincerely,
p0

I believe you need to attribute every contributor, but you don't need prior permission.--GamerAim (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2018 (MDT)

A link to the contributors should be enough, but what exactly is the context? --Green Dragon (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2018 (MDT)

There is no context yet, just checking my options for resources. The SRD 5e OGL cRPG game would be nice, but there are many features cut out from D&D 5e. I especially like Your Backgrounds and Subraces also maybe Feats(but they are complicating things quite too much). I would like to code first some kind of SRD bestiary/spell book/initiative tracker for Android(I know there are already such tools). With the aim to encode SRD OGC to some human(and machine) readable code(XML?, LUA?). Then we can think about something like Incursion roguelike, and eventually Greyhawk:ToEE-ish tactical one. I do not have any particular road map, just babbling around. Pure abstract level so far. Sorry for making such a fuss. Anyway thanks for answers - p0.

Create Account Page Inaccessible

Hello! I'm a new user, and I wanted to create an account so as to be able to make edits under an intelligible name.

However, I wasn't able to figure out how to do so. The "Creating an Account" section of the Logging In help page directs me to the "Log in" page linked at the top right of the site, but there's no option there to create an account, and trying to use the login form simply states that the username is not recognized. Looking through Special Pages, I found that the Create Account page is restricted to administrators.

Is this intentional (I.E. is the wiki not accepting new usernames), and if not, how do I sign up? Thank you! --124.171.116.209 02:34, 21 April 2018 (MDT)

Account creation is temporarily disabled due to a recent influx of spam :( It'll be back up once our anti-spam measures are updated.--GamerAim (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2018 (MDT)

Thank you! Good to know what's going on. I hope things clear up. 124.171.116.209 05:57, 21 April 2018 (MDT)

Sorlock Page Removed Please

Could I have the http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Sorlock_(5e_Optimized_Character_Build) page removed then I'll recreate it with this account, I didn't know it used my ip address? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kazzican (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Hi, I have cleared the page for you. Marasmusine (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2018 (MDT)

Assistance, please?

I've tried addressing an issue about creating content that's balanced for everyone vs articles that we just want to share with others. I'm not making progress, and think that there's a bigger issue. Any help would be great.
Links for reference: Talk:Card Slinger (5e Class), User talk:Rosewater, and possibly Talk:Alucard (5e Class) pending a response but discussion seems to fall in line with other conversations. Cheers! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2018 (MDT)

Requesting my campaign setting and its associated pages to be removed please

So I was rather disappointed to discover that by publishing my work here that I do not retain ownership of it. As a result I'd like to have my campaign setting known as "Teon" and the related pages to it (from this wiki) removed if possible. Should I post links for each of the pages or is it enough if I post this page here: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Teon_(3.5e_Campaign_Setting)

Essentially I'd like to remove it and the supplements that go with it. Again, if you want me to post a link to each page specifically I can do that too. Altrunchen

If you read the GNU FDL then you will know that you may move the campaign setting to your blog, but it still needs to be licensed under the GNU FDL (at least the edits done to it on D&D Wiki), with a simple licensing message and a link to the contributors (you).

If you just want your work to be removed, so you can repost it somewhere else, it still needs to be licensed under the GNU FDL. Nothing is ever really deleted, hence we can restore pages and edits, so to cover our legal situation the content on D&D Wiki adheres to the license.

We are only willing to delete any of your contributions if you are the sole creator of the page. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2018 (MDT)

It's worth noting that you still retain IP 'ownership' of your work (and your work alone, not including others' edits to it), in the sense that you can release your work elsewhere and even under any license as you please. But as it stands, the work as presented on D&D Wiki is rightfully licensed under GNU FDL, and it can only distributed as such. --SgtLion (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

Note: GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#2. VERBATIM COPYING explicitly states that you need to include this license with the work. Dual-licensing it may work. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

To be clear, we won't delete anything he posted that's of tangible value, right? Because I remember deleting good content on user request being a big no-no.--GamerAim (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

Ah okay. So does that mean that because I retain "IP ownership" that it only needs to have a GNU FDL credit associated with it when it's on the wiki and that it's not required for the blog after all? Or do I need to put a credit to the GNU FDL when I publish it elsewhere regardless of my ownership of it? Also, even though there were some edits I made where I forgot to log in, it seems that nobody else made and substantial edits. At the very least I can just edit theirs out (if there are any) when I publish. If I'm understanding you guys correctly. Altrunchen

Assuming you didn't base the setting off anything you found on D&D Wiki, and no one else edited the page in question (check the history tab), you don't need to license it under the GNU FDL. In that case the work is (presumably) 100% your own work and you can do whatever you want with it. It someone else did edit it, you can use a prior revision that they did not edit (again, use the history tab). If you use a revision that someone else edited and/or if the page is based off something else you found on D&D Wiki, you need to license it under the GNU FDL.

Please note that what you've already posted on D&D Wiki is released under the GNU FDL. While you technically retain ownership of it, anyone who wishes to modify it under the terms of the GNU FDL can. So, in practice, you no longer have sole control over the copy on D&D Wiki. You can make a new copy of your own edits that no one else can edit without your permission, but the copy already on D&D Wiki is not "yours" anymore. Does that make sense?--GamerAim (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

So whatever I post on the blog is mine and whatever I've posted here is "mine" under the terms of the GNU FDL which lets people edit it and claim ownership of what they contribute. Whatever I posted here on the wiki is shared by the terms of the GNU FDL which gives people permission to edit it and claim ownership of what they edit it to. But because I made it, whatever I personally contributed belongs to me as well. So I can post my own version of the setting on a blog without any problem as long as it's my own version and it does not take from anyone else's edits. Correct? Altrunchen

Yes, that is correct :) Though I would like to note that you're unlikely to face opposition while editing your campaign setting, should you choose to remain here. It's not impossible that someone else might want to contribute to your campaign setting, but I don't think that tends to happen. Just letting you know we'd love for you to stay <3 --GamerAim (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

OGC:Necromancy Spells

OGC:necromancy Spells is listed as a redirect to OGC:Necromancy Spells at Special:BrokenRedirects. The only problem is, they both link to the same page, so I am unsure of how to remove the last of the OGC broken/not really broken redirects. SirSprinkles (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

This was the very issue I brought up at BD's talk page. It's a technical anomaly. --SgtLion (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

I've now fixed this issue by deleting the page straight from the SQL database. --SgtLion (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2018 (MDT)

Can I have something Un Deleted?

HI I was the writer of the Saiyan Fighter Combination (it was a work in progress and that was my goals because the classes sucked). It was incomplete and I feel like it was deleted for no reason by "ConcealedLight", I feel like he feels like he owns the saiyan fighter class... I want my work back because I put a decent amount of time into it

Saiyan Fighter Combination (5e Class) was deleted because it was apparently a recreation of an old, deleted version of Saiyan Fighter (5e Class). It has nothing to do with CL feeling that he owns the class. He made literally one edit to the page; the bulk of the edits to that page come from Blobby383b. Perhaps if you ask kindly CL or another admin would be willing to undelete it and move it into your userspace for you while you get it ready for prime-time television. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:49, 15 May 2018 (MDT)

Deleting redirects now unnecessary

Just for notice to ye admins, as per the recent automation of my bot, Broken Redirects and Double Redirects will automatically be purged/fixed. As such, there should rarely ever be need to manually deal with them. Obviously you can if you want, but you can also now deliberately leave the debris to be cleaned. --SgtLion (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2018 (MDT)

Oh wow, that's neat! Thanks a ton. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2018 (MDT)

How often does the bot fix broken or double redirects? Because I just checked both pages and there are several pages in both. SirSprinkles (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2018 (MDT)

Sharing Pages

A user just asked me how they would go about sharing the race that they had created. I informed them to follow the D&D Wiki:Copyrights page, but after browsing the help portal I see that there are no pages detailing how one would go about sharing creations on this wiki, whether they were the creator or otherwise. SirSprinkles (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2018 (MDT)

I mean, the Copyrights page you linked to explicitly states what and how people can copy content from the wiki. We can try summarise that in a friendlier help page, but rewording and summarising legal jargon is pretty hard. Unless you're talking about clarifying the IP issues around a sole creator technically having the ability to license their work under multiple licenses, that probably could use clarifying. --SgtLion (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2018 (MDT)

Getting my things locked

Could I get each of my Greenhorn/Novice Goblins locked after approval?

Footers and Categories

Is it possible that including Categories in Template Footers doesn't let the wiki recognize the categories on the page? Example:

Character Creation (Olyptia Supplement)

The page is currently on Special:UncategorizedPages but we can see there's categories on the page. Simple fix if I'm right but want to make sure. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2018 (MDT)

Blocking Users

Upon becoming an admin I did a lot of looking into different policies. I can't recite them but I got a warm and fuzzy. So, I think dandwiki has adopted its own process for warning and blocking users, and isn't communicated very well. Wikipedia has it's own section [] that explains users should be advised of their wrongful actions and have a chance to correct their wrong doings, except in situations noted. Personally, I like this policy as it assumes good faith. In regards to a recent block, User:Roxasorganiz13 didn't receive a Welcome Message, or any warnings--which don't have to be done in some situations. A message had been posted for them but no time period to see if the user's behavior would change. We don't know if the user removed templates thinking the pages to be balanced. I am not faulting anyone for the block, there is a way dandwiki has been handling these and I learned Wikipedia has policy that is different. If I need to be educated on the dandwiki way, I think our users need something as well. Cheers! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (MDT)

Blocking a registered user without so much as a 'Hi don't do X' is really rubbish, but disappointingly frequent behaviour as of late. The fact that BSFM made the effort to reach out, then Geodude671 blocked the user with no regard for BSFM's far more correct approach-in-progress, is even more upsetting. I've unblocked the user for the time being, as their blocking was clearly not the correct action in this case. --SgtLion (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2018 (MDT)

Yes, we need to warn users before blocking them. IPs, though, do not need to get warned. This policy is exactly right. If a disruptive user does not reach back out, then its fine to block them. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (MDT)

Admin Guidance

Fellow Admins, I request help on something. There are numerous pages like Energy Core Generator that belong to the Autoplate Pilot (3.5e Class) which are explained in the class. I flagged a couple for delete because redundancy. If the class used links, then I could see cause for it but the pages themselves aren't really worthy of their own page. They aren't spells, feats, variant rules, etc. Their improvements to a class feature. I'd like to speedily delete these pages, but looking for approval first. Thanks BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2018 (MDT)

Not that I'm an admin, but I noticed those clogging up Special:UncategorizedPages a while back. I would 100% support the deletion of the class and/or all aspects of it.

If someone insists on preservation of the supplements as opposed to deletion, I would suggest merging those contents onto the class page, and/or renaming every supplement to something like "Autoplate Pilot (3.5e Class)/Energy Core Generator" and categorizing it appropriately. - Guy (talk)

I hadn't considered the class. I think I'll abandoned on that. The contents are already on the class page, that's my reasoning for proposing the deletion of the "supplement" pages, but I am wanting to make sure a speedy delete for the "supplement" pages would be reasonable. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2018 (MDT)

On the talk page it looks like I made a start deleting the supplemental pages, I guess I left the job unfinished. As it's still not even clear what an "autoplate" is after all these years it's probably for the best that the whole thing be removed. Marasmusine (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2018 (MDT)

I'd seen that and wondered. Since a few of us are on the same page, I will start with supplement pages since their "easily" found uncategorized :) thank ya both! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2018 (MDT)

My Class Isn't Appearing On The 5e Classes Lists

Hello and good afternoon. I am here because the class I created isn't appearing on the 5e Classes lists and hasn't since created. When I first started it, I labeled it as Incomplete and WIP but it didn't appear on either. Now that I have removed both tags and added a balance request tag, it is still nowhere to be found. Not on the normal list, fictional, WIP, incomplete, april fools, or any other. Saiyan Warrior: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Saiyan_Warrior_(5e_Class) . I wanted to see it listed so the community could see it and hopefully help me improve/balance it little by little since I'm playtesting it on July 2nd for the first time. EDIT: It doesn't even show on the "recent changes to all classes" list. SaltiestMeatBall (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

I'm assuming that was you guys who put it on the Incomplete area, thank you very much! Now others will see it haha SaltiestMeatBall (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

The 5e Classes list pulls pages based on their categories. The class was missing the needed categories, so I added them, which caused it to show up.

If you used the "create a new class" textbox on 5e Classes, it would have provided a preloaded format that included the categories already. - Guy (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

Call to Arms(per say)

Hello, my fellow administrators and wikians. I'd like to ask for assistance in cleaning up the backlog of pages that have sat with maintenance templates for over 5 years now, and eventually move on to those that have sat for over 2. I'm not as familiar with pre 5th edition content as I'd like to be so my solo progress is slow and I thought I'd ask for help in that regard. I've recently constructed a dpl table that lists such pages on User:ConcealedLight/ControlPanel#Grey so if I could get some aid with cleaning up that section I would be most appreciative. Thanks. —ConcealedLight (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2018 (MDT)

A nifty DPL. I think first I'd like some clarity on what would be appropriate. If I'm not mistaken, if something has sat with maintenance for over a year, its been abandoned. Should all these pages be PfDs in case users wish to fix them? Some of the pages like:

• Entropy (3.5e Cleric Domain) just needs wikify but I don't want to do it.
• Variants of Future Spell Power (3.5e Epic Spell) another formatting issue.
• Lunatio (3.5e Race) another formatting thing due to imagery
• Amulet of Sweet Rage (3.5e Equipment) I don't know how I keep finding formatting issues -_-
• Intercessor (3.5e Class) just needs fluff
• Umbral Enspelling (DnD Mystery) needsbalance because "it doesn't fit anywhere"

So, while I'd love to help with this, I'd like some clarity from Mara, GA, SirSprinkles, Sarge, and The Boss Themselves. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (MDT)

Thanks, that's fair. Though I think it is interesting that a lot of these pages have sat for so long without such minor issues being addressed. I mean they don't turn up on the main pages due to the templates so are they really being used? 5 years is an insane amount of time for simply nothing to happen and we have pages that go back to 2009 on this list. I too would like to hear from our more senior administrators on what should be done about this, and if it is even worth individually reviewing these 500 pages of various editions and standings. —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2018 (MDT)

How about we add {{abandoned}} to all these pages? --Green Dragon (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2018 (MDT)

I thought about this too, however, the issue then becomes, in a years time, when the pages get auto marked for deletion and then suddenly, BOOM, 500 PfD's that need to reviewed who may or may not be valid candidates for deletion. Ie: a minor formatting issue like bsfm mentioned. So that would only really shift the problem down for later. However, if you're fine with it GD, we could very well just let them sit on {{abandoned}}, with a link to this conversation and if they aren't sorted out in a year and 14 days then we can automatically mass delete them. I've already skimmed through the output and removed the ones that look important so I don't think there would be any issues and if there are we can handle it on a case by case basis. ie: "You deleted my page!", "Can I have a page undeleted?", "It said work in progress!", etc. —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (MDT)

If we want the reviewing templates to be taken seriously, then we also need to make them effect the pages. I find that {{abandoned}} is appropriate for these pages, since we have a years time to look over them. If we are worried about all the pages being CfD at the same time, add abandoned to the pages slower (and then people also have the chance to look at them in RC). But, yes, we have to take this measure so if we all agree on this concensus then it's the goal. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2018 (MDT)

Agreed. I'll notify Sarg. —ConcealedLight (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2018 (MDT)

I'm very much against the idea of adding abandoned to all these. We don't add Template:Abandoned to every page with an IRR template for good reason - because most of these pages have a meaningful degree of high-quality, useable content, and doesn't warrant deletion. (I daresay a good portion of content people use encompasses old IRR'd stuff.)

Doing this would destroy good content and piss off users with almost no benefit at all. I'm sure some need deleting, but I'm vehemently against possibly deleting an otherwise brilliantly thought out and constructed page just because its formatting hasn't been right for some years.

If you want to fix a backlog of IRR articles, then actually address the problem in each individual article, don't enable the lazy deletion of good, collaborative work just so some DPL looks tidy. --SgtLion (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2018 (MDT)

Heeeeeeeeeey! I, uh, don't think I intended to see if the bot could do this for us. When I looked at the issues on the pages, I sought clarity what was most appropriate: mark abandoned, propose delete, quick delete since issues sat for years, fix the page, or do nothing. I've seen some users get started on this and from the looks, they've been using judgment when to fix, when to PfD/abandoned-and admittedly after seeing them do that, I felt rather dumb for hesitation and asking questions. Apologies to all for that/this/anything! Happy Monday. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2018 (MDT)

Sorry - Not trying to antagonise, I appreciate and applaud the effort. But I think the most labourious of the answers: 'fix the pages', is the right one. (and, obviously, PfDing when appropriate) --SgtLion (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2018 (MDT)

I agree that making a bot label all of these pages as {{abandoned}} is not the correct procedure. How about if we say that after a user looks over the pages with maintenance templates for multiple years, that they (not a bot), can CfA the pages (not PfD like you posted above)? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2018 (MDT)

My main issue is that we've been PfD/CfAing a lot of articles for incredibly minor, or pretty much irrelevant issues. My super boring contributions the past few months have almost entirely been just undeleting unjustified deletions. PfDs are being placed even on current articles because of templates for a few typos, or minor wiki formatting, or 'doesn't seem to fit'. Admin discretion was helpful in the past because it was well-placed, but I (evidently) don't trust us all to make the right call on deletions now. Hence why I don't trust the proposed free-CfAing-on-old-articles with templates either.

If memory serves, our old general rule was "Totally unplayable / three meaningful templates = PfD; Barely playable / Two meaningful templates = CfA" I like that rule, can we just codify something like that? With perhaps the footnote that articles unimproved for over 2 years with one meaningful template can be bumped up to CfA? 'Meaningful' in my mind meaning that the issue severely impairs the playability or readability of the article. --SgtLion (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2018 (MDT)

Discussion Page Categories

I recently added categories to the wiki gaming discussion pages I think were archived and I’ve noticed they’ve populated where current wiki gaming discussions are.
a. Should they be there?
b. If not, what’s the right thing to do?
Thanks for any and all help! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2018 (MDT)

Recovering deleted pages

Hi I just found that my mystic reforged page was deleted. Is there anyway to have it brought back so I can save the data from it? I put a lot of time into it and one of my players is currently using it and no longer has the page to reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masonhunz (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I'm not an admin, but to save an admin a couple seconds, I'm pretty sure this is the page of note: Mystic (UA-Reforged) (5e Class). - Guy (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2018 (MDT)

Hi Masonhunz, unfortunately, I can't restore the page because it was deleted due to copyright violation. However, if you add a valid email address to your wiki account, I will email you that page. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:40, 15 July 2018 (MDT)

Check your inbox; I've emailed you the class information. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:20, 17 July 2018 (MDT)

Thank you so much :D

Unable to edit page

See Talk:Heavy Armor Modification (5e_Feat)#Changes. It seems like Androxios is unable to edit a page he recently created even though it doesn't appear to be locked. Would an admin be able to help with this? - Guy (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2018 (MDT)

Another user emailed me about this same problem. Maybe it has something to do with the new MediaWiki upgrade? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2018 (MDT)

See the discussion underneath the one linked. When you click on the "edit" button next to the subheader on that page, the site thinks you want to edit the 5e feat template. I imagine the user that emailed you is facing a similar issue. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:32, 28 August 2018 (MDT)

As Geodude671 pointed out, the issue is that the subheader's edit button links to whatever page made the header (in this case, the 5e feat template). I know this has been the case for a long time, and not related to the MW upgrade, but rather the way we've started to lay out our 5e pages. This is just the result of putting a header inside a template. I'll have a quick look, but I don't see any way around this. --SgtLion (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

Moo-ha-ha-ha, and other such evil laughs. I remembered seeing clever GamerAim use "__NOEDITSECTION__", and have pickpocketed this clever knowledge to hide the dysfunctional edit button from that feat template. It's probably necessary to do the same for some other similar templates, I'm guessing. --SgtLion (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

Nice job. Could you get your bot to roll out that edit or should I grab the big wiki stick? —ConcealedLight (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

This is probably a task better handled by wiki sticks, as the bot is likely to break a bunch of things for such a niche task. --SgtLion (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

Vandalism

See Special:Contributions/Poo. - Guy 10:02, 28 August 2018 (MDT)

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

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 (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. —ConcealedLight (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. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 06:44, 5 September 2018 (MDT)

Oh yeah, I like those. Salasay's one especially. —ConcealedLight (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 (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?

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. — Geodude (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 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

I agree with the application of this as I said on its talk page. —ConcealedLight (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. — Geodude (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 (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

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? —ConcealedLight (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. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2018 (MDT)

Restricting Execution of Administrator Powers

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 (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. — Geodude (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 (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. —ConcealedLight (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 (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 (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. — Geodude (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)

— Geodude (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. — Geodude (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 (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 (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2018 (MDT)

Agreed. —ConcealedLight (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

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. —ConcealedLight (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 (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

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

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)