Talk:Home

Site Design
Been playing around with the user/monobook.css thing, nice thing to have since the default color scheme hurts my eyes. Problem is I've been running into hardcoded styles, like the color scheme that makes up the front page... any chance we could try an effort to ditch hardcoded colors? >_>;

Oh, and I reversed the order of the topics... even when organized with the == 's if the page gets too long, you have to scroll way past all the stuff you're no longer talking about.. IMO a convention to place new discussions above inactive ones would be a good idea..? --Uky 01:55, January 27, 2006 (PST)


 * I will leave the convo order as it is for now, but standard is always by date so somebody can jump right in to the comverstaion. The point is that things are archived as time goes on - this page is nowhere near archival time yet, I'm afraid. About the main page and CSS, please do not use the CSS to change the site design for yourself or the colorization. If something is guady or unattractive to you, start a vote on it - if enough vote for a change to the CSS, then I will gladly change it. This was going to be temporary, but the design I was planning just won't work in Internet Explorer, and 82%-94% of our hits (depending on which wiki) are based from IE. About the main page and such, same goes as for actual CSS - if it's ugle, change the CSS don't change your display of it - that way it's un-ugly for everyone! Please, this way your edits are best for all the visitors - if you see it as they see it, then you'll have an easier time telling what looks good to them! 02:10, January 27, 2006 (PST)

New main page
Sooo what do people think? Any suggestions? Still under construction of course lol -- 17:59, January 24, 2006 (PST)


 * Looks good! We would need a quick access to skills, feats and enhancements. Someone posted on the ddo forums (!) complaining that he could not find enhancements anymore, lol -- Tihocan 18:38, January 24, 2006 (PST)


 * Add it yourself lol - and I replied to that person ^^/ -- 18:49, January 24, 2006 (PST)


 * Will do later today, just didn't have time when writing this msg -- Tihocan 07:12, January 25, 2006 (PST)


 * I feel sad that all of the red links are gone. I dont know what to add now.  I really need to figure out how these category things work.  I guess I just like doing everything by hand cause I am old fashioned.  --  koolkat 20:52, January 24, 2006 (PST)


 * What red links are gone? There are a *ton* there! -- 21:10, January 24, 2006 (PST)


 * Will have to fix all these categories stuff. Don't really have time right now, so I added some quick links to enhancements, feats, skills and races. I modified a bit the list of items for each class, replacing abilities with feats (that's how they're called in DDO - class feats), adding enhancements (though they're not categorized yet), removing quests (AFAIK, there are no class-specific quests in DDO)... -- Tihocan 08:13, January 25, 2006 (PST)
 * Well, the class feats need to be separated from the class pages, to their own pages. Then this list needs to be abbreviated to reflect that. -- 09:43, January 25, 2006 (PST)

Topic names convention
Remember that, as stated by SilverSide, a topic name is supposed to have one single capitalized letter (the first one), except in specific cases such as proper nouns for instance. This does not prevent you from creating redirects, but the "true" topic should follow this convention, for coherency of the Wiki. -- Tihocan 08:41, January 20, 2006 (PST)


 * Yes, naming policy - one of the dangdable (that should be a word) policy pages I am working on now. Soooo much stuff... -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 08:47, January 20, 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)
 * Well that player WOULD be able to jump to the fuller desc... Cat:pages make links to those in the cat... not just the name. Yeah, zones is probably a good candidate. Short near index-only pages that don't really need a short desc like Races are good candidates as well. --Uky 19:44, January 19, 2006 (PST)


 * Have little time, but warning: I have many categorization and mobilization plans laid out, but no time to start them just yet (what with EnterWiki 2.0 in the works, and a new semester starting) - I can't really order you to do anything (except to refer to me as 'Miss Jenny' - that is in-negotiable hehe) but I would request that you get as much plain 'ol content into the wiki ASAP. I am rather good at organization, not to mention the fact I have a bot set up to take care of categorization and such, but content I cannot do as I don't even own the game. Anyway, just a tip... -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 20:25, January 19, 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)

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)

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)