hey everyone, I just wanted to say wow, this is great. But my question is " is there a Tavern yet? and if not. when will there be? "
- If you do make some sort of chat, make sure it's nothing like the old one? >_> Perhaps deciding on an IRC channel somewhere on a server (where people can connect via Mibbit) might be a good idea... --Ghostwheel
- That's exactly what we're doing. It will have a tavern-like interface available here for those who want it, but it will also be connectible via IRC client. This process is halfway complete. Surgo 06:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Lemme know here when it's done, as well as the server/channel? --126.96.36.199 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Any update on this? --188.8.131.52 02:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds pretty good. Mibbit is amazing, one of my favorite online tools and probably the best web client out there. If we can get a little portal-like thing that we can link to from our sidebar, this would be ideal. Surgo 07:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- A direct link (without any skin) would be http://widget.mibbit.com/?server=irc.mibbit.net&channel=%23dnd&nick=DnD_User%5B%3F%3F53F%5D where the nick translate to DnD_User[???] (where ? is a random alphanumerical character). If you know how to show the user's nick on the sidebar, use that instead. <edit>Actually, Surgo, if you want to talk about it in real time, I'm there now.</edit> --Havvy 08:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- So is anyone actually ever in any of the irc channels listed here or on the talk page? I popped into them, and no one was there at all... :-S
- We're in Iron City right now, we'll be moving over to the irc channel shortly. Surgo 14:08, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let the people who've been working so hard on this that it is shaping up really nice and really fast. It looks gorgeous, thanks to Surgo, TK, Alec and anyone else I might not know who's working behind the scenes. Thank you for giving us a new home. (Bunnie) Bunkie 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Typing all that in is a waste of the prescious little energy i have left at this hour, so ill just say i think exactly the same as bunnie. Cookies for the people who worked so hard on it. --Hijax 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see less 3.5e Races and more User Races, moving the latter over past the former where appropriate. I think there's still some place for a format more like 3.5e Races, such as in Classes and Prestige Classes, but stuff like 3.5e Races needs to go -- for anyone wondering how people are going to find races by LA and other stuff, I'm going to be creating advanced search forms for that using the recently-installed Semantic Forms. Rith's uploading of these pages made me realize how drastic a change was needed because of how bad the old system was. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Surgo 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good, once you have it working. Taking into account all of the errors, what's the ETA on having a good navigation system? Also, when are the broken nav page links getting fixed, or are they going to get replaced when everything else works? IGTN 21:42, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
The problem, unfortunately, is Semantic Mediawiki is a laggy piece of crap when it comes to updating data. I'm in the process of changing properties and names around, adding interesting filters, etc. Unfortunately, it takes like a day for any change I make to actually propagate to everything that needs to know about it, so it takes a day for me to see if what I did actually works. That's what's taking so long here.
If you're curious, the "advanced nav feature" will be Special:BrowseData. I'm in the process of adding filters for more finely-grained browsing, making sure all the semantic data we need is there, and making sure the category structure makes sense. Surgo 16:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, want some help on those category structures Surgo? The ones in there now aren't so useful for searching for content. Things I would expect to be subcategories of other things aren't (because they're absent or just a regular category) and it makes searching with it very bizarre. How different from the nav pages did you want to make the structure anyway? - TarkisFlux 01:37, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
- If there's somewhere where X should be a subcategory of Y, please make it so. I went through and changed some things a couple weeks ago when I had time, but I ran out of time to do it. The category tree really needs to make sense to aid navigation. Surgo 01:46, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Surgo - Noticed that you've been playing with some of the nav pages now that your table row template is working. Did you want to move back towards existing nav pages to get around the site? Is it just for the time being while the BrowseData stuff is sorted? Or just a convenient place to test? Not that I have copious amounts of free time at present, but I'd like to know where to direct my nav efforts later on. - TarkisFlux 21:09, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Old-style nav pages should at least be there for anyone who wants to use them, in addition to BrowseData stuff. At least, that's my opinion. Surgo 21:55, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
I've found this wiki interesting, and I was planning on saving on a different set of Gestalt rules I have created in a new page. I typed up the whole article, only to find that I was caught in a loop - It kept asking me to verify by image that I wasn't a spammer, and it lost the title in the process. Anything I'm doing wrong? --Gralamin 04:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- That really shouldn't be happening. Now that you're logged in, I suggest you copy the text you made then go to make a new article with the same title. Then just paste the text back in and save. As you're now a registered user, it shouldn't ask you to verify. Surgo 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still Happening. I'm not sure why. I'll try again and send screen shots of what I have. --Gralamin 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't you hop on the chat (link on the main page)? We'll be able to help you better (in real time) from there. Surgo 04:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Found Fix: If Article has the Author template, try removing it. Fixed it for me. --Gralamin 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wizards Boards Stuff
On Green_Dragon's wiki, there are a few items from the Wizards board. On their talk page, it shows "This spell was taken, by permission, from the Wizards Boards. Here is the thread related to it: " (or This spell was taken, by permission, from the Wizards Boards. Here is the thread related to it: [http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=124820]) Are those items going to be moved over? I'd really like to see the Jelly spells over here so I can move the domain too. --Havvy 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- They can be moved, but it needs to be marked on the page that they are licensed under the GNU FDL version 1.2. Surgo 02:15, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
There are some 4e creatures in the 3e homebrew section. Good job on building the wiki :). Deranged. 12:17, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, and we know -- a lot of nav pages are screwed because of a bug that's being fixed in the upcoming week. Surgo 13:28, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, just making sure you knew. By the way, if I recall correctly, this wiki was mainly created with more focus on quality and rating. I fully understand you have to build up something before you can start screening it, but what is the (to be implemented) policy on rating? Deranged. 10:33, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest using the Netbook of Feats categories, plus five additional categories for stuff that was assumed or irrelevant in the NBoF (possible Completeness, Organization, Grammar/Spelling, Linkage, and Illustration). I found the NBoF categories very useful both when submitting feats and when selecting feats, but more coverage is needed here. --Ideasmith 21:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
- NBoF is overall pretty horrible. Our rating system is going to be the Rating Committee idea. It's already set up, we just need to get rating. Surgo 22:26, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
- If your new system tells me more about why the reviewers did/didn't like a rule, I definitely want to know more about it. Where can I learn more about what categories are used for this rating system? --Ideasmith 23:53, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome. I'd very much like it if my ideas got rated, since I am simply a designer with little feeling for appropriate challenge ratings and such. The only question I have regarding the rating is what it'll be: LG (5/10 This needs a little work, perhaps if you did it more like so-and-so?), LN (5/10 This gets a five out of ten, because bla.) or LE (5/10 delete this because of a lack of quality)? Deranged. 17:18, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
- The ratings work as follow: Bronze Star if x people on the RC like it, Silver Star if y like it, and Gold Star if z+ like it. I've forgotten the values of x, y, and z momentarily. We decided to work this way because of our dissatisfaction with numerical rating systems and how little they ended up meaning. Surgo 17:20, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
- And specific comments can and will be given on the discussion pages? I mean, it's terrific to know if and how many people like my idea, but it could be handy to know how to make MORE people like my idea...
- Of course. The Rating Committee in no way, shape, or form makes talk pages (and the discussions therein) obsolete. Surgo 17:28, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
What the heck is Gundam and Pokemon doing on a D&D wiki?
- Being awesome, of course. Karuma 18:45, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
This is a wiki for D&D, NOT Gundam or Pokemon.
There's currently no link to the navigation pages from the main page. If I want to find the 3.5e or 4e portals, I'm best off going through the "new pages" link on the side and breadcrumbing my way to what I want. There could be a very good reason for this (such as the navigation pages tending to be buggy), but I still thought I ought mention it due to its frustration-ness.
Also, the main page should be protected for everyone but sysops, unless we want vandals to have fun. (Also, it gets rid of clunky edit buttons everywhere for some skins.)
- You don't have the little list on the left that I don't remember the proper name for with direct links to the 3.5e homebrew, 4e homebrew, srd, etc. on it? - TarkisFlux 15:51, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can throw down something for the Monobook sidebar to make it make more sense. The wiki really is built around Monaco though. This is probably a good opportunity for moving the remaining stuff in Monaco.css that belongs in Common.css, over to Common.css Surgo 18:26, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
Not main page specific, but close enough. Can we get a link on the navigation side bar to Category:Help Wanted to make it easy to access those pages, or do people think that would be better placed elsewhere? - TarkisFlux 18:01, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, will do. Surgo 18:54, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
Expore the Wiki
[On the sidebar to the left] is really starting to annoy me. Any way we can change this? -- Jota 23:49, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
- That can be edited, moved down the list, or just plain old removed if we want/need to, since it's largely unused functionality at present anyway. What about it is annoying you Jota? - TarkisFlux 00:32, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Specificay? The ack of an particuar etter. -- Jota 01:28, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are referring to, such a thing would have been obvious and dealt with long ago.
- Also, fixed. - TarkisFlux 01:35, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Or rather it was fixed until Surgo removed it pending it actually working like we want it to. - TarkisFlux 03:10, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the fact that expore is not a word and it should have been explore. There is the slight possibility that this is happening just because I'm browsing with Safari, but I didn't really think that would affect something like this. -- Jota 03:52, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for being unclear, I was being sarcastic. I saw the issue after you pointed it out and fixed the spelling, and then Surgo removed it because we don't use the functionality yet. Safari had nothing to do with it. - TarkisFlux 04:46, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Hey, quick question. I know that the article ratings are based on points, two points from a excellent and one for a good favor, but how many points does it take to get a rating?--ThirdEmperor 19:15, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
- 3 for bronze, 7 for silver, 11 for gold, and 15 for a featured article. - TarkisFlux 20:29, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
Create new article
Hey the have some kind of auto-formatter stuck on the create a new article, nothing harmful, but completely useless. just thought you'd like to know.--ThirdEmperor 08:02, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Reformat of the main page
Ok, maybe it's just me and my inability to cope with change, and maybe it's the "skin" of the wiki I'm using (but I do have "admin override" checked in preferences), but the reformat looks really strange to me. Is it just me? I'm no graphic designer, but the big bright blue bars running the width of the page seem unaesthetic, if that's a word. Granted, I'm probably going to get used to whatever change is made within a week, I'm just wondering if others are feeling the same. --The Badger 05:01, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Originally, in my test, I shot for brown bars, but the similarity to paleowiki was decidedly too much, so I swapped that out for a light-blue bars set-up. I prefer the lighter-blue bars. Surgo liked the darker ones. Didn't try gray due to blandness. The reformat was rather spontaneous. If there are more complaints, it's easy to change. --Ganteka Future 05:11, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I vote for Brown. The Blue is unseemly. I have no problem with bland. I mean, the picture is Black and White. How bland can you get. :p --Jay Freedman 06:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, so my initial mock up took way less time than anticipated. Everything went together pretty smoothly, and I think with a few more tweaks it could be very nice and welcoming. It's very brown, but I'd hardly call it bland. I'm running a 1680x1050 screen, which is by no means the biggest on the market, but way bigger than the smallest. If someone with a smaller screen could tell me how it looks on the talk page, that'd be nice. Thus, I submit attempt one for your comments. --The Badger 06:48, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- @Badger: Its too busy. I like Google style. Less is more. The colors are perfect however. The navigation bar at the top is not needed per say. We have the left bar for that. Oh, and can we "Un-Thumb" the main image. That border is strange. Nice work though. Its much better than our current blue. Just too busy for ol'Jay.
- We've decided to have them, but featured status is tied to an article's rating, and rating hasn't been happening with any regularity of late, and nothing got that high even when we were. So yeah... But when we do get rating and featured sorted, we have a setup that will auto shuffle them around, even preferring new-new ones without sacrificing visibility of old ones. - TarkisFlux 19:00, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Has a light grey/silver bar with black writing been considered? I think it would be less offensive to the eyes than the current blue, and would also tie in to colors already used elsewhere (main logo, the images on the rating template, etc.). -- Dracomortis 18:53, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Let it be done. I unprotected the main page so you can do it, if you have colors in mind. Surgo 20:09, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Badger's proposed color looks really nice; in addition to being less glaring than the current blue, it also ties in fairly well with the dragon image's lighter grey. -- Dracomortis 19:00, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- : Badger Gray (The Current Gray)
- : Wyvern Logo Gray
- : Banner Logo Shadow
- : Wing Logo Shadow
- : Current Border Gray
- : "How to style text" sidebar Gray
- : "Articles on this wiki" Gray
- If anyone cares, here are some color swatches to look at.--Ganteka Future 19:36, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I knew it would happen. I've previewed a dozen different colors, and nothing looks better than that dark blue. Clearly I'm just bad with change. --The Badger 03:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I changed it to badger gray, but I really don't like it. And since I thought the dragon was a placeholder for favored articles (assuming we ever get that process sorted and set some as favored), I don't see any reason for sticking with colors that work with it. Gonna swap to the light blue that gan liked but surgo didn't for a while, see how that works out. - TarkisFlux 04:46, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
Another D&D Wikia
- We know. They are (slowly) being merged into us. Surgo 23:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Not that I don't love what you've created here, but why are they merging into this wiki? This wiki should merge into their's. No offense, but they have the much better namespace for random folks googling about DnD (not your fault, they were here first). Sure this wiki is phenomenal compared to theirs, as well as any other homebrew resource I've come across, but I think the name is crucial. Have you contacted them to ask them if they mind you guys moving in? --The Badger 21:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I think the point is for that to happen anyway. We kinda "absorb" that wiki, and merge their namespace into ours, sort of redirecting people who go there over to here so that we have that namespace. --Ghostwheel 21:20, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, they are merging to us because we have about 9 times as many articles. Surgo 21:23, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Now that all articles from D&D Wiki have been imported and that wiki itself has been redirected here, should we announce it under news, mentioning DnDWiki:Introduction and perhaps Dungeons and Dragons Wiki:DnDWiki import? Daranios 16:24, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. Tarkis has historically written all the news items because he's better with his words than I am with mine :-P Surgo 16:25, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
- OK. - TarkisFlux 19:31, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
What about licenses?
How do you manage the license terms?
It's not clear in the home page of this wiki. I think some people intend to share their creations, but unwilling to put them under CC-BY-SA license terms.
Other content is restricted to OGL (well, cause it's original in that license or it's just a derivative work tied to that license too...).
Or maybe somebody want to share content under CC-BY-ND instead? cablop June 15, 2010
- The other two bureaucrats (TarkisFlux and Aarnott) can feel free to chime in here with different opinions, but I am completely against any content uploaded with a no-derivative license. First of all, it's unclear if that would even work on a wiki -- no derivatives means no one can actually edit. Second of all, that is entirely against the spirit of homebrew cooperation, of taking and using in a game, adapting and changing and re-making and then sharing again with the world. I will fight tooth and nail against any no-derivative content ever being allowed here. Surgo 03:34, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- While we probably could do it, I just don't actually see a reason to do it. You can't copyright game ideas or die mechanics or whatnot, just fluff and actual instantiation stuff. So putting anything up here under a different license doesn't actually protect the bits most people care about, it just makes people rewrite portions of it before they use it for whatever they were going to use it for, and then not give you credit anyway. If you don't want people doing that, I'm not sure why you'd put it up on the interwebs ever in the first place. Nothing would be gained by doing that but some annoying administrative work and a false sense of security. - TarkisFlux 03:43, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, i came to this question, cause i had the idea to complement a text description with some cites. For example an excerpt from lyrics or poems the way books do. Those things have their own license terms, and NOT related to game issues. But hardly tied to copyright issues... Suppose i want for anyone to be able to freely use a template of a monster i created, but i don't want for anybody to modify a couple of verses i would add in the description, but to make people able to freely distribute the verses if they liked them... The same for some artwork. -- cablop 00:25, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- For uploaded content, the only licenses that are allowed are OGL, CC-BY-SA, and any license that is less restrictive than CC-BY-SA. Surgo 03:35, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- It's nice to put some OGL and CC-BY-SA together. :) Sadly, we can't share other artistic material together with the rules... Could you make an exception for cites and some artwork (that does not affect the game rules reusability)? I think some content of this kind could really enrich the wiki. -- cablop 00:25, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Images, and thus artwork, can already be fair-used (mostly, there are some sketchy areas regarding image size), which sorta trumps licensing concerns in my locale (and the one the wiki is hosted in by my understanding). You could probably do the same with excerpts as well by including a link to the whole in the work. Neither of these actually means that the whole of the work has been released under the CC-BY-SA, it's basically still protected by whatever other license it had originally as the uses mentioned are specific exemptions to copyright.
- I'm not sure what you're asking with respect to cities though, can you explain a bit more? - TarkisFlux 00:37, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not asking about cities, hehe, i'm talking about cites, let's call them excerpts then. Well, with some friends we are planning to create a whole set of rules compatible with d20 system. But we want to put some other artistic material to enrich it. Some of my friends are afraid to see their excerpts or images modified for any purpose, more specifically, commercial. Then we have the ideas of CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND licenses for this excerpts/artwork. I'm also thinking on other solution: maybe i can put the core of those rules here, and just to add a link to our content with the full excerpt and artwork there with different license terms. cablop 18:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Images are not subject to the text license restrictions of OGL, CC-BY-SA, or less restrictive -- so you can do pretty much whatever with images. "Has the permission of copyright holder" is enough to upload an image here, with no license change. As for the text...I'm afraid CC-BY-SA and OGL are the most restrictive licenses we are willing to consider. Surgo 18:30, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Boo reading fail. Ok, scaled down artwork and excerpts can be posted here under fair use without granting any sort of license by the upload and without changing the license that they are originally released under. So you could use a couple of lines from a song in the description or intro for a class, and the whole of the song would remain protected because it's not actually hosted or released here. Fair use generally doesn't work as a defense in commercial uses, so anyone further modifying their work had better be able to claim fair use anyway (at that point it doesn't matter what license it was originally released under anyway) or you can go ahead and sue them for that. And if you don't want anyone to even modify it under fair use, this discussion is moot and you should keep it in a locked box under a bed guarded by panthers with lasers or something.
- In short, the things that your friends are worried about are already not concerns unless they post the entirety here and accept the license here; as long as the excerpts and scaled down images go up under fair use it'll be fine. If they go up in part here, they probably need to be posted by someone besides the original author, or used in the work of someone who is not the original author, so that there's no appearance of the author accepting the wiki's license.
- And you could have a personal link back to the main project, but having a "go here for more information" link on every page would be against wikia policy as it's basically an in-article advertisement for a product. You could link to the full content in the attribution of the excerpt or art work, and in fact you'll have to for images if you want to claim fair use, but that's about the extent of the linking you could do without violating terms of service. - TarkisFlux 18:43, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know exactly about "fair use". But you are right. I think I can explain them about that fair use, after some research. cablop 18:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- About the link, I was thinking in something like the Wikipedia has at the end of articles in the "References" and "External links" sections. I think it suits best in the "References" section, and maybe an "External link" pointing to the exact source of the OGL rules shared here, not the main site. cablop 18:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a different question. Well, OGL is harder to read than CC-BY-SA... but as far as i see, OGL permits the user to make commercial derivatives, while CC-BY-SA don't, as long as i share the portions i modified. CC-BY-SA seems to be viral to the whole derivation. Am i right? cablop 19:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a fair parsing of the licenses, though the OGL license specifically exempts portions of the work (product identity among others) from the resusability bits. So things like poems and names and all art ever doesn't get to be reused or modified. I'd like to reserve the OGL bits of this site for publication transcription, so if you have a completed work released under the OGL you could stick it in that section with OGL tags on it. Links to the actual product site would fit better in that setup anyway. Otherwise, anything in main homebrew land should probably be CC-BY-SA. Also, Fair Use link. - TarkisFlux 19:46, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- CC-BY-SA absolutely allows you to make commercial derivatives -- if you don't want that, you need to use NC. They must be licensed under a similar license, but licensing with CC-BY-SA is irrelevant to commercial status. Surgo 21:02, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what I understand is, I can't make something exactly commercial from this license, cause the SA part force me to share the product in the same way, that is, if i make a comercial derivative, i have to let people make derivatives from it. People can take it and modify and make new things... That makes so hard to use the rules here to make an online RPG for example, cause people can take my RPG and create a new one... just by including one class taken from here! cablop 22:58, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- I just came with a new idea... What about content with dual licenses? It's just some bell clanging in my head. If someone wants to include a class found here in a MMORPG, but, of course, not willing to make the MMORPG under CC-BY-SA. They just can rewrite the class and give no credits. Maybe a dual licensing, that is CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND (both active for same content) allow for some people to use a class in a MMORPG and give credits to this site or the author... Just an idea... just that. cablop 23:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Share-alike status is irrelevant to commercial status. You can release RPGs commercially that are under the CC-BY-SA license, and people have done this -- Eclipse Phase is under the license and is profitable. I don't think you quite understand the dual licensing scheme. If it's under CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND, any one who wants to use the class can pick either license. They aren't forced into either license -- if they want to make a derivative, they can go right ahead with CC-BY-SA and completely ignore CC-BY-ND. The licenses are not this AND this, they are this OR this. Surgo 02:03, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, slight mistake, Eclipse Phase is under CC-NC-SA, not CC-BY-SA. My point remains, though -- it's the same thing that allowed the SRD (a license similar in spirit to CC-BY-SA) to work. WotC still sold copies of the PHB, despite d20srd.org existing. Surgo 02:06, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I really understood the double licensing scheme. Don't worry. I'm used to it as software developer. I know the OGL is nice for this idea, cause it's not a viral license. But the CC-BY-SA is like the GPL, a viral license, once you use something from CC-BY-SA or GPL your whole work falls under chosen license, you can't isolate a part of your work. You can sell it, anyway, but you can't avoid other people to use your product and create a new one and sell too. And about Eclipse Phase, the NC-SA combination makes it simply nice. No body can make a derivative and sell it :P. cablop 15:29, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose, then, I'm just not understanding why you're concerned about the "viral" nature of CC-BY-SA. With the OGL, people could still make a derivative work (or even copy the work) of the product and sell it. And some people did just that. Surgo 16:18, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- He's saying that using some OGL doesn't make everything else in the work OGL, but using some CC-BY-SA does make everything else in the work CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure if that's a correct interpretation or not.
- It's worth pointing out that just because the author of something here has licensed it here under the CC-BY-SA, that doesn't preclude them from licensing it to you or someone else under any other license in the world. If you got permission from the author to use something under a different license, then it doesn't matter that it's CC-BY-SA somewhere else. I can license my stuff to whoever I want under whatever terms I want as long (as I don't have any exclusivity agreements). So you can use stuff from here, with permission, under whatever license you both agree to or you can use stuff from here, without permission, under the CC-BY-SA and all that comes along with that. - TarkisFlux 16:25, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I get that. I'm just not fully understanding what his concerns are. Surgo 17:01, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- They want to retain control of product identity things like songs and images, and are worried that they can't do that if they include any CC-BY-SA stuff even though they could if they included OGL stuff. And are also concerned (wrongly) that if they release their classes and a fair use portion of their product identity stuff under the CC-BY-SA that they can't release a better version under a different license. I think. - TarkisFlux 17:11, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right on the first part. We want to release some content but retaining control of the artistic part (some texts and images) and the product and company identity. After reviewing the fair use policy we are no more worried about that. We can share it the way you say, about those excerpts or artwork.
- In the second part you're not right. We know we can make multiple licenses for same work/product and we can also make new versions and even release those versions with different licenses than source content as long as we retain all rights on source content. Two concerns raise from the following issue: Suppose somebody wants to make a game or book using (remixing) for it some content from here. Picking up OGL content is not a problem, but picking up CC-By-SA content forces him/her to share it under same license. First concern is we don't want to lose control on all the artistic and creative work behind some works like a computer game (we are planning to make books, comics and computer games), this way we are more found to use OGL content. You are right we can contact author(s) and get different license terms if we want to use some CC-By-SA work. Second issue, we know other people have same concerns and maybe we would share almost all our content under OGL license or maybe CC-By removing the SA requirement. I think this is right with your wiki, cause this is a more open license than CC-By-SA and fair with people, cause they can use our work just by giving us attribution.
- Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough about that viral thing. It was not about only us, but about the whole community. We want to be able to remix but keep control on some portions of our work, but also give the same rights in exchange to community. cablop 13:00, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
- As it is a license of greater freedom than CC-BY-SA, CC-BY is perfectly acceptable here. I personally believe CC-BY-SA would be the most fair to everyone because it would make sure derivative works are still open, but it is entirely your choice and we will be happy with CC-BY. Whenever you want to upload the stuff, I'll make a template that marks a page as CC-BY. Surgo 18:57, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
→Reverted indentation to one colon
By removing restrictions on what people have to do with it, these is greater incentive to take it in the first place. And since anyone taking your content doesn't have to share it anymore and can license it under something else, you make it even more likely to slip out of your control and be changed and resold. For someone who seems to want to retain control of their work, I'm actually not sure what you think you gain from dropping the SA portion of the license. - TarkisFlux 19:34, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the same as people releasing software under BSD license. If somebody makes something useful, my name will be tied to it. Imagine a game like, dunno, Neverwinter Nights with a portion of text saying "Attribution to cablop and his team for...". This is what we can win. Of course, not willing to use it for all our content. But i think CC-By and BSD licenses are the most open licenses of all, and my favorites (personally speaking)... except for Public Domain. cablop 02:39, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Just a funny note, when I was talking to Tarkis earlier about this I mentioned that this was basically the difference between the GPL and BSD licenses. Anyway, you're free to use CC-BY on here. Just give me a note when you're ready to upload and I'll have a template you can put on the top of the page that marks it as CC-BY. Surgo 02:43, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, guess I misunderstood the kind of control you wanted to retain for your mechanical bits. - TarkisFlux 18:16, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Now we have a namespace "Canon", where we can put all articles based on published (as opposed to homebrew) material!
Later, when there is some content, we could create a navigation page for Canon, and a link next to 3.5e SRD, etc. on the left-hand side, and/or a navigation page of navigation pages, to explain the distinctions and use of namespaces here. Daranios 20:57, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Better to just add it now I think, to annoy us with it's blankness :-) So I did that. It's in the sidebar already as well. - TarkisFlux 21:34, July 2, 2010 (UTC)