Talk:Tuna and Sweetcorn (5e Race)

Balances

I've not done it before, but here is my current assessment:

Marasmusine's Meter: -0.5 (Ability adjustments), +2 (Min AC), +1 (Darkvision), +1 (Mayo); +1 (Lucky Fishy) = Score 4.5, on point. Plus stick slow-ass land speed in there somewhere.

Musicus Meter: I don't adhere strictly the steps for this, but, +2 (Traits), -1 (Small), +0.5 (Lucky), +0.5 (Darkvision), +1.5 (Min AC), +1 (Is what I'll guess for Mayo) = 4.5. Kinda underpowered, but it seems fair to me, so I blame the system.

I really don't get 5e, but this race is already part of my identity. Obviously feel free to edit, or just complain to me and I shalt address. --SgtLion (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (MDT)

This page angers me greatly... --ConcealedLight (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2018 (MDT)

;3 --SgtLion (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2018 (MDT)

Protection

The most prolific contributor to this race has said, "feel free to edit," but... this page is protected? Protection prevents the original contributor (who isn't an administrator) from being able to edit their own creation. Protection implies this page was bombarded with degrading edits, which from its history seems to have never actually happened. Protection puts this page in a place that implies it can't and shouldn't be improved. Protection is a roadblock to collaboration. There's numerous ways it can be improved just from a glance, which is something locking this page implies should not be improved. Here's just a few possibilities that shouldn't be controversial to anyone:

• Size, languages, and alignment could be given full sentences, like the races in the Player's Handbook.
• "Tuna and Sweetcorn" could be replaced with "tuna and sweetcorn" where appropriate, to better follow Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize.
• Someone could actually make tuna and sweetcorn fanart, instead of trying to imagine how a sandwich has arms.
• More lore, whether silly or serious, could be slipped between the sparse sentences present much like tuna between slices of bread.

Two or three of those are normally something I would have done without a second thought and moved on to look for something else to improve, but, "The primary contributor has requested no further edits to this page." Perhaps the bigger question I'm trying to answer here is: why is okay to protect pages for seemingly no reason? Isn't this intended to be a collaborative wiki? - Guy 07:45, 20 September 2018 (MDT)

We've had multiple discussions on protecting pages that could be considered as 'done' to bring some stability to pages, regardless of degrading edits. In this case, the 'feel free to edit' of course was posted some time previous to the protection, so it was plenty appropriately true at the time. I think general protection a good idea, and we have 'official' templates to designate as such; but I don't know if we've had a 'decisive' discussion on the matter one way or the other. To be honest, in this case it was mostly a joking application to stick my tongue out to more unscrupulous admins. Those improvements seem good, and really, do what y'like. --SgtLion (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2018 (MDT)