Talk:Main Page
From ENWiki
Contents |
[edit] Bad Colors in Recent Changes
Thanks for fixing Recent Changes. I can now read what is going on.
[edit] Differentiating between editions
So, is there a plan for how to make pages for different editions in a consistent manner? --FredrikSvanberg-12996 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Listing Links
Quoting from the main page: "Try not to just fill up pages with lists of links; if we wanted a link directory, we'd create one!"
Then maybe that's not a bad idea: creating a links directory. There are alot of things that float up on the forums that would be valuable for people to have quick, organized access to without having to search it down, but which may never get pasted into the wiki by the original authors. And I have a hard time imagining that it's considered reasonable netiquette to paste someone else's stuff into a wiki. If I'm wrong about that, someone please enlighten me.
- From Morrus: I don't have a problem with creating a links directory as well, but not instead of. And by posting stuff in, I was referring to when people add links to their own stuff on a thread somewhere rather than putting it on the Wiki; obviously one shouldn't steal content. Or, for example, publisher pages which are just links to websites - it doesn't tell the reader anything.
- From OP: Understood. I'd like to make one quick point in response. I suspect that most of the links we're discussing were not added by the creators of that content. That suspicion is fueled by the knowledge that I added about half the 4E ones myself (hey, I thought they were useful). My point is that alot of good stuff may slip under the radar if folks are discouraged from posting such links. Just an opinion offered with due humility.
[edit] Templates
Templates in wikis have a bad habit of constantly being changed around by people who think they know best. Sometimes it's just because the person wants a template to look slightly different, and sometimes it's because they think a different style and different parser functions will work better than those originally created in the template. However, there are a lot of templates being made already that will (presumably) be used all over the wiki site, such as the Power Block Template, the Styled Stat Block Template, and many others. When someone changes one of these templates, even for benevolent reasons, it can disrupt other pages all over the site. Therefore, I propose that once certain key templates are created and fixed to satisfaction, they be protected by sysops. At the very least, there should be a warning at the top of each page, such as the one I have created, the "Do Not Edit" Template, which will hopefully keep people from disrupting things too terribly much. I have added this warning template to the top of several other templates so far. It has worked very well on my site, so hopefully it will also work well here. --Ishmayl 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- From Morrus: Agreed. I know absolutely nothing about templates or how they're used, but if someone wants to tell me which pages need to be protected, I can do that much.
- Well generally, on wikis, there's only two real reasons to protect a page: to keep spambots/vandalbots/malicious posters from spamming the site, and to keep important material from being changed and effecting the site. The first reason is not really necessary right now, since EnWiki won't be the target of spambots (at least, not tons of them) for awhile - and a good way to protect from them is just to implement a captcha of some sort anyway. For the second reason, they should only be applied with due consideration, since changes could (and should) be necessary every now and then. For the time being, I would recommend just sticking with the warnings, and if someone changes a template drastically in the near future that hurts the rest of the site, just rolling it back to fix it. Then, once the EnWiki gets much bigger, and (presumably) hundreds or thousands of people are using those templates, protect them and set up a system to allow changes to them only after deliberation and/or voting. That's now Wikipedia handles things like that, and it's worked so far for them. Cheers! --Ishmayl 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creative Commons and Copyright Issues
Morrus, you may have already thought through all this, spoken to a lawyer, etc, but just in case, I would like to bring up something that took up many days of discussion over at my wiki. Due to the nature of wikis in general, it is extremely useful to set in stone, immediately, what sort of copyright or Creative Commons license your wiki will use, before someone gets hurt by some sort of legalities. As you can see by looking at the discussion on my wiki, CCL's are extremely important, and should be taken very seriously, especially considering all the new rules concerning WotC's new GSL, OGL, etc. Just a heads up and thought in case you haven't considered it yet. Here's a good page for helping determine a CCL to use (if that's the route you go). Cheers! --Ishmayl 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
How would a Wiki entry differ in that regard to a messageboard post? Both are user-created text blocks; one is merely called "the wiki" and the other called "the forum". Neither are written or published by EN World; both are merely tools for users. We've certainly survived 8 years without worrying about such things on the forums; I'm unclear as to how a distinction could be made between one and the other? - Morrus
- It may end up being something that you don't even have to worry about. The difference between standard messageboard posts and wiki posts, is that anyone can edit a wiki. Meaning, if UserJoe creates something and posts to the wiki here, and expects that he still has full rights to it (as is standard in most posting instances, since he created and wrote it first), but then someone edits the work, or derives from it his own work, there can be issues. Once again, it may even be that it's not worth worrying about here, but since eventually, someone is bound to post something here that they expect they own, it may at least be worth coming up with something to answer that person when he inevitably complains that his work is being used in ways he didn't approve of. It was just a thought - I don't know how you guys handle legalities and copyright issues on EnWorld, I just know it has come up on other wikis in the past. Cheers! --Ishmayl 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- "How would a Wiki entry differ in that regard to a messageboard post?" Very. Only I am responsible for the content (and copyright) of my posts, but a wiki post is a public resource. It can be edited, attributions can be lost, and most of all, it will be USED. What happens if someone decides to use some of these items in publication? What about the GSL and the "product line" clause? It's fine that the wiki mixes "fan contributions" with "I am the author and I give permission" and CCL and OGC, but each needs to be clearly distinguished, and users will have to be disciplined to diescriminate between them. This is a HUGE issue with the OGC stuff... by being designated as such, these wiki entries should be considered as carefully as any publishing decision. In theory, someone might post 4e stuff in the OGC section, someone else publish it, the Wiki generates a C&D disorder, and WotC declares some poster, who happens to be a small publisher, is in violation of their "product line" agreement or just gets peeved and makes them destroy their stock. It is not clear at all what the status of this stuff is. Under a CCL site or a dedicated OGC contribution site, you know exactly what is what. But if an author gives me permission to use a contributed post to make an OGC entry, technically the material I derived from them is PI and it would be naughty for me to repost it anywhere else but this site without their permission.
Pawsplay 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
-- There's a whole OGC section on the wiki; as for publishers "mistakenly" using items, a publisher (a) needs to do a but more reseacrh than seeing something on the net and copy/pasting it; and (b) again, it's no different to them mistakenly grabbing something from a forum post. I'm not seeing an issue here. --Morrus 23:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me where that OGC section is or how I offer up anything as OGC. There are no declarations, no acknowledgement I am licensing anything. Just as an example, look at:
http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/BoXM2_Fighter
Is it OGC? Who knows? It looks like it's just fan stuff. The OGC Compilation is for published stuff. If you just don't feel like the fan stuff wants/needs a license, that should be mentioned, too. It would be nice if there were some explicit policies.Pawsplay 07:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
-- The OGC section can be accesse dunder the OGC Compilation link in the main menu (right hand column on the main page). Declarations, instructions, licenses, etc, are all there. --Morrus 09:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
-- "This section is for a compilation of existing Open Gaming Content from published sources; please see the Main Page for the fan content menu." Pawsplay 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Feature requests
I started a list of feature requests and added it to the main page. withak (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Column for OGC Compilation
I think the OGC Compilation would benefit from a column of its own. the 4e and 3e fan sections draw a lot of attention away from the one link for the OGC Compilation as well as confuse first-time visitors.
--amaril 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
