I think we should create a 'template' page for each entry (like the one in feats) so there is some consistency between different user's entries. -18.104.22.168 08:57, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone still active here?--Du 22:16, 30 Tul'ti 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I still am, a small bit. Sadly, I have more important things to do in my life, plus I have been away for a bit on a trip. It's been fairly dead because of OGL issues, however, so no promises that anyone else is still around. Mathx314(talk)(email) 21:43, 1 Tul'li 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Math, thanks for the welcome. I've read some of the OGL concerns, but I'm not sure what it all boils down to as far as what is allowed. Let me know if you see anything I do that's not appropriate.--Du 00:01, 2 Tul'li 2006 (UTC)
Should Official Open SRD information be added to this Wiki to make it more complete?
- We can, but the point of the wiki is to make a campaign setting, not to host an SRD. Awesome hypertext SRDs already exist at various places, such as my favorite, d20srd.org. It might just be better to send people over there for core rules explanations and such. Mathx314(talk)(email) 19:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do you stop people from just adding whatever they like and more importantly, deleting whatever they like?
- I hope it doesn't come to this, but I can always use the admin-only Special:Blockip page to block users who do things like that. Otherwise, most people won't do things like that. Mathx314(talk)(email) 14:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To whoever it is that put the Force Knight class in, are you going to fill it yourself, or is it open to public editing? Just thought that I should ask.
- It was apparently put in by Glenshadow, when he created the page. But his last edit was made 9 Jun, so I'm not sure that he'll be returning – but for all I know, he's still hanging around and just hasn't edited recently. Mathx314(talk)(email) 19:33, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
It may be that the OGL and GFDL are not compatible. I have contacted Angela about this problem, but here's the basic problem and a number of solutions, so we can discuss the problem here. Wikia requires the wikis under it to release content under the GFDL (the exceptions are Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia, but they were founded before joining Wikia). However, the OGL states that anything built off of OGL content, which we are (since we're building off of the SRD) must be released as OGL content. This is a problem. Here are a number of possible solutions:
- We flag all content that is from the SRD as OGL content, and we distrube Polaqu information as GFDL. I'm not entirely certain that that is the correct solution.
- We ask Angela, very politely, if we can change our license such that we are no longer GFDL, but instead are releasing all content as OGL. This would work, however it goes against Wikia policy.
- We switch hosting companies. This should be our last resort. We are already set up here, most people are familiar with MediaWiki coding, and I personally love it here (heck, I'm a sysop on the Central Wikicity).
Please, we need polite debate about what we should do about this dilemma. In the meantime, please be concious of this problem before adding new material. We'll have this sorted out ASAP. Mathx314(talk)(email) 20:26, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The OGL isn't compatible with the GFDL. It seems like it could be useful for this wiki to adopt the OGL, but I've a few questions about it. Do you think the OGL is going to be complicated to adhere to on a wiki? Do you think there's enough of a community here to monitor that users are doing this correctly? How much content do you think would be added here that does not need to be OGL? Would there be much point in dual licensing with the GFDL or are most articles going to need to be OGL? Angela (talk) 02:36, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should dual license. If my understanding is correct, we could add a catagory "contains open game content" to everything that has some. We have to designate Open Game Content and Product Identity (see <http://www.thegamemechanics.com/freebies/TGM_MindScion.asp> for an example of this, in the license section. We could say somthing like "all game mechanics, specifically mechanics in sections with the catagory 'contains open game content' are designated as open game content". And "anything that is already open game content, from the SRD etc. remains open game content". Then we'd have to cite all the open game content we use (which would not be hard) the common places are already known. If sombody adds Open Game content from a source and fails to cite it, and it becomes known, we just need to either a. delete the content, or b. cite it. We'd have to inform people if it's not OGL (ie non-game mechanic text) it's GFDL. Also, we'd have to maintain a protected list common words that WotC and others consider Product Identity and make it clear to our users we cannot write things that contain these words. Lastly, the legal notice that occurs while posting text, should be changed to inform people that the text may be dual licensed based on what sort of text they're contributing. We'd just want to put the OGL stuff in a promentent place to cover our buts, and every location that contains OGL content should have a link to the license text, which can be accomplished with a template.
- I'm NOT an attourney or anything, but unless I'm mistaken, that should pritty much cover it (and get rid of the ugly OGL text-boxes).
- If I am at all mistaken, please correct my facts. What do other people think? —Crunchybits
- Section 7 of the GFDL allows aggregation with non-GFDL texts, so I think this will be fine as long as you make very clear which parts are GFDL and which parts are OGL. It would probably be easiest to have a policy of keeping single pages to a single license since there's no easy way to designate particular parts of a page as one or the other if people are coming in and making edits to the entire page. Please make very clear on Project:Copyrights what the situation is, and make sure people realise they can't copy OGL parts to projects like Wikipedia which is purely GFDL. MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2 will need to be updated or created to state this information in the footer of the edit page. Angela (talk) 11:52, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Is this matter settled? Can we add new stuff now or what? Though I'm not entirely sure what the matter was (looks very complicated). Oderic 15:07, 31 Froe'ti 2006 (UTC)
- I think I may have figured it out, after looking at some books with both OGC and closed-content material at my local gaming store. For instance, the Munchkin Player's Handbook by SJ Games puts content from the SRD in grey boxes, which designate that that material is OGC. They release all else as closed content. Meanwhile, the website [www.giantitp.com] releases new information as OGC by enclosing them in grey boxes. I think if we close SRD material in boxes and make a note of that on DnD_Wiki:Copyrights, we should be okay with releasing our custom material under the GFDL. Mathx314(talk)(email) 20:47, 31 Froe'ti 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am new. My nick is Salt. I have contributed a bit in the cul zeed (race, uploaded the map, the city of cul zeed), what do you think? It's my first time in wiki. Salt 10:35, 1 Froe'li 2006 (UTC)
Adopted the siteEdit
Hello, I just adopted this site and I intend to mini-merge (Add content from one to the other, but that will be all) it with my main site D&D Wiki. I hope all goes well, and if you have any questions feel free to ask me. --Green Dragon 15:48, 7 Ign'li 2006 (UTC)
I think we should switch back to real world date system for practicality and ease of use. Du 19:39, 23 Tul'ti 2007 (UTC)