Talk:Home

Home page look & feel
Looks like the recent changes list on home page does not display changes to the Category:Skills page. Could it be because it's a category? Can it be changed so that categories are correctly displayed? (especially since most of the stuff will be in categories...) -- Tihocan 19:39, January 14, 2006 (PST)

NDA content
NDA IS LIFTED!!! -- Tihocan 12:36, January 9, 2006 (PST)

Hi Guys, is there a way to begin populating DDO specific content without releasing it to the public (and violating the NDA)? It'd be nice to have that stuff good to go on release ArgleBargle 11:02, 4 January 2006 (PST)
 * Someone already started one over here: http://www.virtualvodka.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
 * I'll move the stuff over once this place get a bit more up and running, unless you can think of a better way to organize it. -- Pirho420
 * That has... no content. Like 10 pages - see the changes list.  I will migrate their content once I got a restrict pages setting working... -- SilverSide 12:38, 4 January 2006 (PST)
 * Cool I was the main editor, well pretty much the only editor over there for the actual rules and was mainly wondering if it was easy to copy stuff over. I added in all of the class info and the race info.  I also added all the base attack stuff and the cleric enhancements (oops broke NDA).  I'll set up a table on those classes for saves and base attack and special abilities to make it look more official, but I'm a newbie to this wiki stuff, hence why my tables dont look pretty.  I've still got to do the bard to finish, but I can do that over here.  --  Pirho420
 * I also just created a hidden wiki, and it is fully visible, except that you cannot view pages without logging in, and you cannot log in without and account, and you cannot create an account with asking me to do it (-:
 * Beta members - visit that page and add your name (with a signature) to get added to the site. your username and password will be mailed to you, then you can begin adding directly DDO-related content! -- SilverSide 12:58, 4 January 2006 (PST)

By the way, I have not access to the NDA, but I would expect it to have restrictions about where information about the game can be shared (e.g. only on the official Turbine beta forums). Isn't it the case? -- Tihocan 13:58, January 5, 2006 (PST)


 * Im guessing so as well, but who is to say that we are even sharing that information because it is in a hidden place and not being released. It is more of setting up pages that would be incorporated and edited after DDO goes live.  --  Pirho420 15:17, January 5, 2006 (PST)


 * Exaclty - it isn't sharing content. Lets say you were playing the beta and talked to another user about a monster - would that be sharing content? This is the same thing, you are merely discussing it with other beta users, and your 'discussions' will be released to the public after the game is released (-: -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 15:36, January 5, 2006 (PST)


 * I know, it would be shared only among beta people. However, if I were Turbine, I would not let anyone set up his own private area to discuss the beta, because I would not have control on who has access to it. I asked about it when I read your post on the ddo forums where you advertised this private wiki... but I just realized it had gone away (don't know if you or a moderator deleted it). -- Tihocan 15:52, January 5, 2006 (PST)


 * We'll have to look more closely at the NDA, but it seems that putting together a private wiki would provide no greater breach of secrecy than a private forum for a guild, and that seems to be fairly common. In any event, the main focus at the moment should probably be getting the 3.5 core rules into the wiki, because the DDO specific content will be a lot easier to integrate after that work has been done...  That will give us more time to review the NDA and see if turbine weighs in on our thread in their forums ArgleBargle


 * Well I posted about it: here - but it doesn't make sense. That thread has been around three days, with numerous refrences to the NDA-private wiki, but there was no response from the admins, yet I start a new post and *POOF* it's gone. Still no response from the admins. Could one of you beta people tell me if there is a thread in the beta forum warning beta users not to contribute to or acknowledge our wiki? That's the only solution that I see, that perhaps their decision is hidden from me, or something - anyway, until they come in here and post a big fat  no  on page here at the wiki I am going to pretend we can do what we like as long as the public can't see the wiki contents. -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 16:49, January 5, 2006 (PST)
 * P.S. you three, would you post in the D&D wiki topic there, just to keep it floating at the top? I don't care what you talk about, just 'hijack the thread' and talk about flying dogs or something, anything to keep it floating on top... I don't want to look like a spammer talking to myself if I am the only poster!


 * Right, anyway I don't believe it's a big issue, since the NDA should be lifted soon (most likely by mid-january, in my opinion) -- Tihocan 16:46, January 5, 2006 (PST)

Monsters
Heh, why'd you break the MM link? "Monster's manual" doesn't really make sense.. if you're going for possession it'd be "monsters' manual" though it's generally best to remove plurality wherever possible... well whichever way, you should at least rename the page so the link works? --Uky 19:55, January 17, 2006 (PST)


 * In such a case, feel free to fix it yourself ! :) -- Tihocan 20:13, January 17, 2006 (PST)
 * Ah, alright.. it was just such a puzzling thing, you coming in a changing a working link into a non-working link.. I though maybe you had some sort of plan. --Uky 20:39, January 17, 2006 (PST)


 * You might wan to look around a bit in the future... anyway, the format is a link to a DEFINITION of the term first (for instance, in this case, Monster), then a link (in parentheticals) to a list of said things (monsters, classes, items, whatever) - and tradationally (at least in the other three MMO wikis I have used) a list of monsters in a game is called the Bestiary, although Monster Manual *might work* - I personally think Bestiary applies more, so moved the page. Please define Monster if you can, so it is no longer a stub. -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 01:24, January 18, 2006 (PST)
 * I don't see where this attitude is coming from. You changed the working link of "Monsters Manual" to a non-working link of "Monster's Manual" which is even weirder than the original. You didn't rename the target to match. I thought it was odd and commented on it. A few hours later, after my comment you changed it to "Monster", and even then it wasn't a working link till a couple more hours.


 * Well "Monster Manual" is a D&D thing, it's the book where the majority of the creature info is found. Not that I'm defending it, Bestiary sounds better though for all the reasons you could argue that not all the things in the MM were monsters, not all are beasts either. ;p --Uky 04:35, January 18, 2006 (PST)


 * lol. w/e - look up bestiary in a disctionary lol -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 04:52, January 18, 2006 (PST)
 * Okay... looked in my dictionary, google define, and a couple online dictionarys too... they all use the keyword "animal". Undead and various humanoids I think fit under monster better than beast but w/e indeed. "Monster" and "Beastiary" isn't nearly as consistant as "Monster" and "Monsters" though ;) Anyways, no need to mountain-ize this molehill. It's fine as is. --Uky 05:09, January 18, 2006 (PST)


 * Yeah the official term for D&D is Monsters Manual, so I would keep that. Just sounds more familiar. Also, I was not the one putting a non-working link in the first place ;) -- Tihocan 06:52, January 18, 2006 (PST)

Navigation
I think we might want to stop doing this listing style formatting, and start making more use of the category feature of the wiki software. Take a look at Adding News for an example. It seems to me that we might have a lot more flexibility in reorganizing the site when the content starts to get ungainly if we go with this format over the manually-edited lists. -- ArgleBargle 18:08, January 19, 2006 (PST)
 * While categories are a very helpful things, it's very unfriendly to do only categories. Mainly because a Cat: page lists only the links in that cat... you can't really specify a short description next to them. So I generally think you should make a nice manual list w/ short descs organized in the most logical, normal way, and then categorize in less common ways.


 * A person who's never played D&D/DDO may might to peruse the wizard spell list for instance. He's not going to want to click on every single spell to see what it does though. No no, the lil spell short spell descriptions are what he's after. On the otherhand, a more experienced player may want to browse spells by element to make the most out've the wizard enchantments. In that case, you probably don't need the short descs as much so categories are good there. --Uky 19:22, January 19, 2006 (PST)


 * I can see that, although I'd also imagine that a player would want to be able to jump from that summarized list to a fuller description of that spell, discussing it's best uses, where to find it, etc... What about Zones, though? They seem a prime candidate for categorization to me... -- ArgleBargle 19:31, January 19, 2006 (PST)