Hi ich bin Sandro 21, Spielleiter aus Dresden und ich suche jemanden der Interesse hat die neue Kampagne von Critical Role regelmäßig zusammen zu schauen, liebe Grüße und schönen Tag euch.
What's on your mind?
We have a large number of pages with descriptions that are copy-pasted (or nearly so) from episode transcripts. This is an issue for two reasons:
While I think it’s unlikely that Critical Role is going to send any kind of legal action against the wiki for copyright infringement, it is against both our wiki rules and FANDOM policy to plagiarize, and it’s of course unethical. I’ve also noticed in a few cases that Matt has taken his own descriptions and used them in an identical or near-identical format in the Explorer’s Guide; doing this to the extent it is present on the wiki could lead us to inadvertently plagiarize from WoTC content.
The copy-pasted language is often extremely awkward - in fact, I first realized this was an issue because the language seemed so unnatural! It’s often repetitive, with incomplete or run-on sentences, and the information in these excerpts is often either lost from the lack of context, or irrelevant to the article at hand. Spoken language is fundamentally different than written, and so while we should of course be drawing from these descriptions when we write articles, it’s important to put in the effort to rewrite the descriptions in a way that is reader-friendly.
I am personally inclined to use the Copied tag to help track these pages for fixes and perhaps even organize a wiki push to rewrite this content, but I’d like to get a sense what other editors think. Would the Cleanup tag be a better option?
Anyone else having no luck seeing anything to do with critical role on the NYCC page? the one they linked? i even searched the guest list and they are not on there. like at all. anyone have any more info that just the 2 links they put in an email?
I just noticed that after the wikia redesign, the Deity infobox cuts off the word "Classification", putting the "n" in the second line. Is there any way to fix this?
It seems like the default way of referring to the two major campaigns is "Campaign One" and "Campaign Two". Going through the character categories I realized we're mixing up both ways: Category:Appeared_in_Campaign_1 and Category:Appeared_in_Campaign_2 vs Category:Mentioned_in_Campaign_One and Category:Mentioned_in_Campaign_Two.
1) Would you all support renaming those first two to Category:Appeared_in_Campaign_One and Category:Appeared_in_Campaign_Two?
2) Do you know of any other categories that might also need to be changed?
In looking through the article maintenance categories I noticed there’s a lot in the tag for art captions lacking permissions (https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Art_captions_missing_permission), and there has been for some time. Obviously we want to respect the intellectual property of artists, so the options as I see it are either to remove the art, at least from articles, or to track down the individual fan artists and get their permission.
My choice would be to remove the art from articles (while keeping the art on the wiki but unused until permission can be obtained), which is I think the safer and easier option. However, I know that’s a huge change and that other editors may feel differently so I will respect the majority vote here.
If you want to track down individual artists, please let me know. I am happy to facilitate this by making a list of artists to contact and art to be credited, and to help with the art caption edits once permission is secured. Thanks!
I cant wait!
Its gunna be great!
There is a discussion on whether the article for this item should be at "Dwueth'var" or "Star Razor". This is simply a notice, especially given the suggested broader precedent for and relationship to naming conventions for other articles. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, please do so at the ongoing discussion at this link instead of here.
Hi all, given some good discussion from @Durandal's Fate here I am bringing this to the group: how should material that only appears in adventure hooks (within the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, the upcoming Tal'Dorei Reborn setting, and any future guides) be handled?
I generally consider any events to be non-canonical. An example is the death of Mikael Daxio, an NPC who appeared in Campaign 1; his death only shows up as an adventure hook in the TCS and he is referred to as still-living elsewhere in the section. The linked talk page provides some EGTW examples as well that are almost certainly non-canonical given Campaign 2's events - and I would always consider events of the show to take precedence over events in the guide. The language used, especially in the EGTW, often indicates adventures are optional and hypothetical (eg: "the characters could be hired...")
However, named locations or objects do often make sense to treat as canon (eg: the primordial seed in the Rifenmist Jungle).
I don't expect a hard-or-fast ruling, only a guideline, but I'm interested in knowing what others think.
This also tangentially touches on some discussions of notability, and I plan to work on some items on that topic as part of the Style Reference, so this will inform that project.
This is a pretty major change I'm proposing, so I'm asking for feedback.
Currently, Vex's page is titled "Vex'ahlia de Rolo". There've been complaints (outside the wiki) that because the CR Wiki pops up in Google searches frequently (which is a GOOD thing!), the title of that page is a spoiler even if the person heeds the spoiler warning on the wiki's main page and avoids us. I've seen suggestions by Fandom that major spoilers should be avoided in page titles and in the first sentences of articles for exactly that reason.
I've been thinking about it, and have come to the personal conclusion that the complaints have a point. So I'm throwing it out there: Should we change "Vex'ahlia de Rolo" to just "Vex'ahlia", and put the information that she added the "de Rolo" to her name after her marriage further down in the article?
I was looking at the 805 items in Category:Non-player characters, thinking about trying to locate a bunch of NPCs from the campaign setting guides, and I wonder if it would be useful to further subcategorize it into:
Non-player characters appearing in Campaign 1
Non-player characters appearing in Campaign 2
Non-player characters appearing in one-shots and miniseries
Non-player characters appearing in campaign guides (or "Non-player characters appearing in Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting", "Non-player characters appearing in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount")
Non-player characters appearing in comics
There must be a way to do this based on the infobox, which automatically adds pages to the non-player character and appeared in chapter X categories. But, looking at the infobox, the logic would need to be developed out something like "if character is non-player AND appears in any of these chapters, add to "Non-player characters appearing in Campaign 1", THEN if they ALSO appear in any of these chapters, add to "Non-player characters appearing in Campaign 2", THEN if they ALSO appear in..." in a way that doesn't disturb the "Appeared in Chapter X" categorization. Which, I don't have an immediately elegant solution for because of the way the infobox is broken out.
Is such subcatting valuable enough to consider working out the logistics of how it would be done inside the infobox (using the template's sandbox)?
To all editors,
There have been some active discussions over the past week, some of which escalated yesterday. People have posted on my wall and mentioned me in discussions to request comment. This post serves to announce that I have read all raised concerns people have put forward, and the admin team will be releasing a joint statement with the goal to touch on all raised issues and invite good-faith discussion where still necessary.
The discussion so far has escalated to be somewhat heated, and it deserves to be answered properly. That is why we expect the statement to be released Thursday at the earliest. Please understand that administrating the wiki is a voluntary, part-time commitment, which hopefully explains that the statement will take some time.
We request everyone to please let the standing issues rest while the statement is being written.
Thank you for your understanding,
I'm not sure how many other people use the 2010 source editor over VisualEditor and VisualEditor - source mode. If you do not have your preferences to "Source editor" specifically, then you do not have to worry about this. This is not a bug report.
But, I've noticed and did some poking around that there is currently a bug (see comments at that link) that forces editing inside VisualEditor - source mode if the user has set source editor as their default. In other words, if your preferences are set to "source editor", the bug acts as if you set it to "VisualEditor - source mode".
It isn't a huge problem, but if you're running into this and you desperately want to use the 2010 source editor in the meanwhile for some reason, you can force it by adding "?action=submit" to the end of the article's URL (no hashes for section links) to open the 2010 source editor. If you're aiming for a specific section, then use "?action=submit§ion=1" where 1 is the section number desired, i.e. "Whitestone rock" on the Whitestone article is section 10 so "?action=submit§ion=10". (VisualEditor will also give you the section number in its editing URL.)
Just wanted to give people a heads up on that, bc it's a little frustrating.
Over the past couple of weeks there have been a number of significant conversations on this page (handling of discrepancies for orcs/goblins across campaign guides, including boilerplate templates, a style guide) with no administrator input; I have been waiting for two weeks now and there has not been an acknowledgement from the admins regarding the request for an anonymous editing trial (and I believe @FreckledMcCree mentioned making a similar request previously, and has similarly not heard back).
This is not a condemnation of the current administrators - I recognize that there are many behind-the-scenes responsibilities, and that we are all people with external lives and finite time. Which is why I would like to suggest that one or more experienced editors be made an administrator in order to lessen this burden and allow movement forward.
@LynnE216 and @Dexcuracy : @OccidentalAvian , @FreckledMcCree , and @Durandal's Fate have all been very knowledgeable and actively involved in these conversations. While I cannot speak for them, I think if any of them are interested, making one or more of them an administrator would be extremely beneficial to this wiki and allow such improvements as the new templates; a thorough centralized style guide; increased accessibility; and even some of the other things I proposed initially such as engagement/feedback surveys, without adding to your existing high workloads.
It's been mentioned in previous discussions about how the wiki doesn't have a centralized style convention guide and general editing advice for the wiki, and I've taken initiative to start a draft for one.
This is developed out of my general experience editing at this wiki, and such my understanding of conventions that exist here, and my general experience editing at other wikis. It is not meant to be a comprehensive instruction guide on wiki markup and such, only covering a general overview of prose writing, style conventions, and specific tasks one may want to do. I've covered anything I could think of, from placing references to handling spoilers to formatting timestamps to Exandrian date formats.
Please take a look, and let me know if there's anything you think is missing or should be changed or is worded unclearly or is inaccurate. The plan is to move this to Help space after it's percolated for a bit.
I understand that what's written on the Orc page is pulling directly from the campaign guides, but it really throws into sharp contrast the difference in how their lore was approached in Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting versus the later Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.
In one paragraph it's saying that the curse of ruin isn't real and that orcs are no more violent than other humanoids despite their origins. But right below that is the section on Tal'Dorei saying unilaterally that every orc is a violent killer, and that some are even hypnotized by Gruumsh and go into a bloodthirsty frenzy, which sounds exactly like the curse of ruin that supposedly doesn't exist!
All of this brought me back to this recent tweet from James Haeck, a writer for TSC and EGtW, saying that the lore for races in Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn got a serious overhaul. The tweet is in specific response to the lore for goblins and drow, but orcs certainly fall under this as well.
The ultimate point of this post is to say that when Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn comes out, many aspects of that book will retcon the previous book. In such cases, I believe that anything from TCSR should be taken as the more correct and canon version of that lore, and replace any mentions of the old lore from TCS that is found on this wiki.
I think this may have understandably been lost in the previous chain I started so I
I wanted to ask again about the possibility of turning on anonymous editing.
It’s extremely common to permit anonymous editing on fandom wikis. Fandoms with considerable CR crossover such as NADDPod, D20, Rusty Quill, and TAZ all permit it for most of their pages, as do many other fantasy/sci fi and video game property-based wikis, many of which have much larger fandoms (eg: Elder Scrolls, Star Wars, The Witcher).
It also sounds like it was recently turned off without a clear announcement why, and that other editors have brought this up in the past but have not received a clear answer from the administrators.
Could it please be turned on for at least a brief period of time as a trial, and if there is no wide-scale vandalism, it be left on (and in the case of small-scale vandalism/disputed content, that things be set so those pages require log-in rather than the entire wiki)?
I know a couple of us, including @Untropicalisland started putting together some new subst templates in the style of Template:New character to help facilitate creation of articles for locations, cities, and items, and I thought it might be good to create a focused thread for discussing the existing drafts, changes and such, and which of them to re-create in the mainspace so they can be added to the boilerplate.
I have one for Items here in my draftspace (this is a permalinked revision, so new changes will not be reflected in this link, please note some hidden notes):
This template is basically an average of articles such as Circlet of Barbed Vision (i.e. bulleted Properties and paragraphed History are most appropriate), Cape of the Mountebank (i.e. paragraphed Properties and bulleted History are most appropriate), and Threshold crest (i.e. sub-headings for each show).
Untropicalisland has also created a template at User:Untropicalisland/Item template, which uses Ring of Telekinesis as a model, which is worth looking at as well. I'm soliciting some discussion before creating a template at Template:New item, just to better lock down what the template should look like between these two and any other suggestions since item articles happen to have a varied format and honestly a lot of varied presentation needs.
But, I have also recreated three of their other templates in template space, as they've previously expressed desire to leave the originals where they are but recreate if moving forward (as I understood it) at the following:
I think these three are good to go, especially the spell template, and these are article types that don't have a lot of variation. They just need some documentation, which I'll create after others have a chance to look them over first.
If there are any other major and common article types that are missing new article templates, please let me know and we can all figure that out together.
I’m not very technically skilled at editing a wiki and I’d rather have it professionally done than my half-assed attempt. My suggestion is an update to his spell list. I believe he has divine word as one of his 7th lvl spells. In the campaign 2 wrap up episode Tal describes a spell consistent with the effects of divine word. 3:25:42