User talk:Cedric

Welcome to D&D Wiki!

Welcome!

Hello Cedric, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your user preferences match your preferences.

Questions

If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's talk page. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on DnD Discussions. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked here. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.

Formatting

Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is Help:Editing on Wikipedia (or even their Introduction page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. Help:Portal also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.

Community

A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of policies are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and etiquette when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our removal process. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature icon (). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --GamerAim (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Rebuilding D&D Wiki

Hi, I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be rebuilding D&D Wiki, but we'd really appreciate it if you read up on our editing help pages first, and then take a look at the relevant homebrew pages for your edition for some ideas on how to create, format and categorize pages. For instance, you seem to have made a typo putting all your pages in Category:6 Homebrew instead of Category:User, as well as not using edition identifiers in the page name or categories despite your content seemingly referencing mechanics. You also seem to be making a lot of stubs, so maybe you could try finishing one article at a time to ensure they're of the best quality? :) Some of your pages (Races, Magic, Gods) look like maybe they're for a campaign setting, so perhaps I can help you set up a campaign setting and format those pages? Your Dice page could maybe even be cleaned up and reused on a help page :D

If you need any help after reading over the help pages, just ask for help and I (or another user) will try to help.--GamerAim (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my prior response. I must have been in wikignome mode, whereby spontaneity is used more than being reserved. I reject some of the temerity of some of the following responses written earlier.... Cedric (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (MDT)

Au contraire, mon frere (or soeur). The races page clarifies and perfects the very notion of race in D&D as well as makes it more tuned to actual users. See the typecast page to better understand. Keep in mind that races have been handled very ambiguously in the various versions of D&D. This page aims to turn nickle into gold. Same fo the other pages, though they be very rough-hewn for lack of collaborators.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedric (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts!

Edit: I forgot to mention that you can create a user subpage for articles you aren't ready to post into the wild, so you can still write your incomplete pages on the wiki and people know to leave it alone while you work on it :)--GamerAim (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of wiki is an informal environment so that collaboration actually occurs. It is not to put the best foot forward from the beginning, it is to contribute until the best content is made. This policy is better than loses potentially valuable contributions and has served Wikipedia for over a decade.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedric (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts!

While you mostly have the right idea, I believe you'll find historical precedent for half-baked pages being deleted if left unfinished. Aside from a few specific exceptions, pages are supposed to consist of something useful to others, and typically have something more than a seed to be built upon. It's also not an excuse to ignore editing guidelines on the off-chance that someone will be inspired by the page enough to properly format it: that falls upon the page creator to do. Sometimes we make mistakes or don't have time to do that, and that's fine, but please respect our way of doing things.

We do encourage contribution and iteration, but my point was that page content is vastly different from wikipedia, so what applies there doesn't necessarily apply here. The main point of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiling verifiable facts and information from reliable sources, something that anyone with access to a library can contribute to, whereas D&D Wiki is generally the opposite in that users come up with their own ideas and content. Wikipedia is about facts, not making things up.

The problem with your races page is that it doesn't fit anything. If that's for races specific to your campaign setting, then integrate it with a campaign setting on the wiki. If it's for races in general, that's something we already have, because even if it's not system-specific, we have a non-systems-specific race category. If it's a definition of races with regards to D&D, maybe the glossary would be better for it. The races themselves aren't terribly useful and don't even necessitate their own pages with how little you wrote: if someone likes your race idea so much that they build a new race around it, then they can make a new page (with the correct title) themselves and fill it with actual content instead.

Re: "it doesn't fit anything". The reason it doesn't fit anything is because it represents a better ordering and crystallization of what currently exists on the subject of D&D race. One can't search for it. Do you understand the defining difference between a hill dwarf and a duergar (besides one being subterrainian?). How will you play them differently as a DM? They both have strong constitution. How about differentiating between a high-elf and gray-elf in game-play? Or why do some versions have strange alter-races (Yuan-Ti) and some don't? This page was made in answer to the lack of answers in any sourcebook. It both simplifies and synthesizes what came before. That is the main criterion for everything I'm putting into D&Dv6. It has to serve both, nothing gets more complicated and everyone's ideas are integrated rather than omitted. Think about all the different cleric versions: massive complication for the DM who doesn't want to hold it all in his/her head. It needs cleaned up so more people will want to be DM. As it is, DMs are hard to find. You can't have millions of people wanting to play D&D with only 100s of good DMs. For this reason, everything should be wound around key words. Take every keyword in the index of the DMG and make a page for it. Boom, now you have a readily accessible resource for the BEST of each topic that ANY DM would love to contribute to. A piece here and a piece there and pretty soon everything is epic. Cedric (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, also add every keyword of the PHB and Monster Manual. THEN, you'll be starting to get the idea of how to build a collaborative site rather than a reference site. Cedric (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, you should look into implementing stuff in a way that makes sense for what this wiki was before you came here, like a campaign setting or sourcebook. It might seem like a lot of work, but this is how we curate the best content for people :)--GamerAim (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I realize that this wiki was here long before I came, but I also know that there are a lot of DMs without a home. Why didn't they come here? Because they're not looking for a reference: they have it already. It's called the DMG. They're looking to collaborate on gameplay and further development of the game (hence "homebrew"). You're current format does not foster the main value of wiki: radical collaboration, bold edits (even without formatting), and curating the best content -- without fences (SRD, v2.5, v3.5, 4, 5, 5e, ..?!?!?!?). I think you will find MANY MORE people willing to help you. DMs especially. As it is, it is merely a resource for arcana. Cedric (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to go through all your points again in the morning, but for now I'd like to mention that it's significantly more difficult for people to collaborate with you if you don't properly organize your pages with the rest of the wiki. The rest of the wiki has no support for your radical departure from our standards, so most people won't be able to find your pages. If you want people to collaborate with you, the first step is to make your pages easier to find :)

You're right. I mentioned this point in my revised comment above: it's not my desire for the pages to be found (yet). When something departs from the norm, like some of my pages, it's best that they be far away from the main pages. The next points below are therefore a bit out-of-date. Cedric (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2020 (MDT)

You're right on the point about organizing with the rest of the wiki, hence I'm suggesting that the wiki re-organize so that it all makes sense. See my points about adding every keyword from the major books. As it is now, major words direct to disambiguation pages for sorting out which version they're interested in -- but this is not what DMs look for. I'll argue that they're looking for the best ideas for each particular topic (wizards, clerics, etc) Once you lump all the versions together, eventually an even greater synthesis of the topic WILL emerge. I promise you. Cedric (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As well, if you haven't done so already, I'd like to insist that you read over all the help pages that our users have put so much effort into curating. I should warn you that the admins do have the right to mark and delete your pages if they don't meet our standards. This won't happen for at least a couple of weeks, so I still have plenty of time to help you get them up to standards if you'd like, but I can only do so if you're willing, because I don't know much about 5e and won't know if something is core rules or some homebrew variant.--GamerAim (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I be absolutely clear what these pages are, so I can move them to the correct location (Races should be a disambiguation page, for example).

Yes.

Are you:

• Writing essays

No.

• Making variant rules for an existing edition of D&D

No. There are enough DMs doing that. EDIT: maybe.

• Trying to make a new version of D&D.

Yes. I called it "homebrew" because that seems to be the terminology you use here. I prefer to use the term "beta". It is for creating the next version of the "world's greatest role-playing game". I left a message to this effect on the discuss page for category:6 Homebrew.

UPDATE: I'm hesitant to say new version until the Wizards contact me directly. But I have new material to update several campaigns and the Deities and Demi-gods book.Cedric (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (MDT)

• Please also answer my question at Talk:Godroll. Marasmusine (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.

I also don't understand half of what you are writing about. For example, at Wizards: "PER helps them know which spell to cast". PER is not a D&D statistic... and the wikilink goes to Paragon, a disambiguation page that has nothing to do with whatever PER is, or spells, or wizards! Marasmusine (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I haven't transferred all of the v6 beta content over here yet, because I don't feel quite welcome. PER refers Perceptivity and is one of two new stats for PCs and NPCs in v6. This simplifies what would otherwise be complicated skill checks for new players and completely rounds out all base classes. This is why is it not a variant version. It is a radically new version, yet preserving the feels. See the page synthesis. (You'll have to view the history as I chickened out that you guys would want me to add content until this issue ("Redesign of the wiki") is resolved.)Cedric (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you've been made to feel unwelcome, but it's quite the opposite! I, like Maramusine, am simply trying to find the best way to organize and curate your content in a way that befits it and the wiki and its users. For the reference, homebrew is usually meant as content created for pre-existing RPGs, like D&D 5e or d20 Modern. The wiki is built (largely) around that notion, which is why some of your choices don't quite make sense to me :P--GamerAim (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so, it's a new version. I'd like all the pages to have the correct page ID and category. In terms of the category structure, there isn't currently a framework for a "new version", everything links to an actual edition of D&D. We have a systemless "Other" category, and we have a Sourcebook category. For now, I propose that the top page 6 homebrew be moved to 6 Homebrew (DnD Other) and have the Category:Other, so it at least appears in a list somewhere. Secondly, all the child pages should be moved to this, i.e. Godroll moved to 6 Homebrew (DnD Other)/Godroll (which will automatically place a breadcrumb at the top) and given the Category:Supplement.

We should also check with User:Green Dragon to see if he actually wants D&D wiki to be a platform for people to publish their own roleplaying systems, I'll send him a message. Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, D&D Wiki encourages these types of ventures. See examples like D20.00 decimal Rules (3.5e Variant Rule).

On the other hand D&D Wiki is a collaborative wiki based on D&D. Coming here and saying “Now, I will organize everything better than before, just let me break all conventions without a care in the world for existing pages, and structures!“ is a no-go.

Look at this from our perspective. We have not had time to see your behaviors. You have not given anyone a concrete example as to allow a category like Category:Races to exist. This category will confuse 99.9% of users here.

I recommend that you first use existing pages, formats, and structures. So, once your idea has flourished you may propose to change Category:Race to Category:Races. Until then, use Category:Race so that we will not delete any subsequent pages based off reasons of “false information“. Likewise naming a page “WofC“ is just confusing, and looks like an error. If at some point you want to seperate D&D Wiki from any connections with WotC, then first propose the idea as it is with all the implementing methods, it will be discussed, and we can move forward. Its wrong to start a project with the intention to confuse and break standards.

I recommend that you either start the project in your userspace, or as a variant rule. We want to stop the confusion you are creating, and it will be done. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I respect your considerations and the content you guys have put together, but one thing you need to consider is that many such pages are invisible until the conventional users link into them. Do you understand? They aren't linked to from your pages, so no one really finds them unless directed to do so. These are "walled gardens" as Ward Cunningham called them and even though he tended to shun them, they are an essential part of the evolutionary nature of knowledge itself. In any case, from now on, I will try to put my pages in my own User space, even though it goes against everything wiki is about: collaboration, exploration of nascent ideas, "be bold", etc. Cedric (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2020 (MDT)

Since there was no objection, I'll make the page moves I proposed above. Marasmusine (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if you are still active or not, but there has been no progress on the 6 Homebrew pages, and they still have no structure, context or definition. Therefore I am proceeding with the deletion proposal made 2 weeks ago. Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Is there any way for you to post your version of the 5e Harry Potter setting? --Redrum 14:58, 12 August 2017 (MDT)

Sorry, didn't see your question. I don't actually have a "Potter setting", it's more like I've integrated some of the magical methods into a school of magic School of Merlin for D&D. Unfortunately, they seemed to have deleted the pages. Cedric (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2020 (MDT)

Here's a list of your deleted contributions. School of Merlin hasn't been created. Perusing around I noticed there are number of dead links in your contributions. Linking something won't create a page.... Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2020 (MDT)

I know that. But that is the habit. The page was on the other D&D wiki {{scrubbed}}, which I don't know if you guys have actually tried it, but you could use inter-wiki links instead of duplicating each other's work. Cedric (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2020 (MDT)

Also, it's not exactly a friendly environment for experimental content, it seems.... ? Cedric (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (MDT)

I'd disagree, unless your definition of experimental content is unbalanced. Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2020 (MDT)

What's imbalanced? Reminder: IT IS EXPERIMENTAL.Cedric (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (MDT)

Imbalanced is experiencing something out of balance. In regards to articles, labeling them experimental is not an excuse reason for poor mechanics, gameplay, or "overpowered" qualities (aka unbalanced). There's plenty of users that wouldn't mind helping out if there's any articles in question. Most active users spend their time curating articles to help the wiki's reputation of providing content that can be used at all tables. Hopefully that helps.

Also, caps should be avoided. It is typical people think this is shouting or yelling. If you want to emphasize a point, try using bold or italics. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2020 (MDT)

Your userpages

Hi, could you please explain what is going on with the pages you're creating in your userspace, such as User:Cedric/Explorer and User:Cedric/Deities and Demigods? It all seems rather nonsensical. Is this for a campaign setting you're working on, or something? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:15, 23 June 2020 (MDT)

As 24 hours have passed and you have not responded, I will be marking those pages for deletion, as they serve no discernable purpose. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:21, 24 June 2020 (MDT)

uh what? Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2020 (MDT)

Geodude, I feel like you're being out of line. We have a very liberal policy with regards to what is allowed in userspaces, and I don't see how this user's userpages violate them. Natsumi super fan (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2020 (MDT)

Thank you Natsumi super fan. I always feel like I'm alone on these wikis, though I stay confined to my own userspace and stay on topic until someone cares. It's not like I'm installing a link-farm or pushing all other pages to link-in to mine. It's honestly very disturbing. Cedric (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2020 (MDT)

I've removed the deletion tags from your userpages; just please don't act the way you did to get banned from the other wiki, and we'll be just fine. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:42, 25 June 2020 (MDT)

Thanks. *QUESTION RETRACTED: July 2, 2020* Cedric (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2020 (MDT)