Template talk:DnD Prestige Class Infobox

Why Redirect

Right now I don't see a need for any differences between the base class infobox and the prestige class infobox. Prestige classes should still use this redirect instead of the base class one because there may be a need in the future to differentiate the two infoboxes. —Sledged (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (MST)

Nevermind. Found a difference. —Sledged (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2008 (MST)

Min entry level and length... --Green Dragon 23:28, 20 February 2008 (MST)

Name

Don't want to edit such a widely used template, but have a thought. Why note have the {{PAGENAME}} bit be altered so that it will showcase the name without showing the identifier (i.e. Legend of the Swamp (3.5e Prestige Class) could just show Legend of the Swamp). The identifiers cause long names, resulting in multiple lines of wasted space and pushing the template down. Thoughts?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:48, 13 October 2009 (MDT)

Done. —Sledged (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (MDT)

Authors and Adopters Parameters

Discussion moved from User talk:Green Dragon#Template DnD Prestige Class Infobox. --Green Dragon 13:25, 11 January 2011 (MST)

I was thinking last night. A lot of pages still have "authors" listed in the infobox, and I've noticed you've spent a ton of time editing this out. Would it make sense just to take out the authors parameter from the infobox templates? That way it would stop showing up everywhere at once.

I would be glad to do it, as it's a good way to learn how templates work, I just wanted to make sure you approved before I changed almost every page on this wiki! JazzMan 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are the authors being removed? I think it's a great idea to have them so that the creators can easily be contacted about the page, or other pages they have done. It also allows authors to take pride in the work they spent so much time creating. I would hate to have the author section removed on my pages and pages I view, just something to consider. :)--Vrail 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

the long-short of it is if you wanna see authors, look in history. --Name Violation 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As Name Violation said, the authors are always in the history. The bigger issue is that "authorship" gives users a misleading impression about the GNU license. What ends up happening is people see the "authors" box and then don't edit pages because they are afraid they are going to be treading on someone else's work, and those pages sit around without being completed. JazzMan 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

However what happens with pages made weeks ago? or months ago, or more? Or what if people like what they have posted and want only minor edits, I realize that it's ok for them to be edited, but some people only want certain degrees of editing done to their pages. Also it says in the box that constructive edits are welcome, unless specified otherwise. If people care enough to respect the author then they should also care enough to read that part. Plus, it won't change a thing if the author isn't listed, its still not made by them and they know there is another author, therefore they will most likely give the same degree of caution.

So if having authors has advantages and some people want them to be listed, and the disadvantages will be in effect either way, it seems there is still no logical reason in my mind to remove them. Anyways, thats just my two cents, ignore me if you want to. :)--Vrail 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm with Vrail on this one. I don't pretend to understand the legal ramifications behind authorship/ownership and GNU-FDL, or whatever else. I know if I see a minor problem with a page (typo, minor formatting, circumlocution, etc) I fix it. If I'm making a mechanical change I post it on the talk page first, and wait for someone else to pipe in (even someone else other than the author) and if they think my edit is for the better I'll make it. I know I have a few things on this wiki, and I'd like to be told before someone is making mechanical changes to my work, not just see it in the revision history. --Badger 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple different issues here:

1. People who don't want their articles edited. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Sorry, that's just the way it is.
2. People who want to take credit for their work. As was stated before, the author's name is on the history. If you want to take credit for you work, put a link on your talk page. There's really no need to take credit on the page itself.
3. People who make edits to pages without taking into consideration the original author. This is going to happen (and in fact, does happen) whether or not there's a little box at the top saying "this page belongs to X". It's good wiki etiquette to ask before making major changes; Wikipedia has pages that are so long gone from the original authors that literally thousands of different editors have made changes, yet still it's expected that any significant changes are explained on the talk page. I think this is a better way to do things, really. Having an "author" relies on the fact that creators stick around to help other people with their pages, and I think it's pretty clear that in the long run that very rarely happens.

I should clarify that I'm not trying to change policy here, I'm just going along with what GD has already been doing. Also, I like the idea of authors in theory, but I think on this specific website, it's making things worse, not better. JazzMan 02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but I'm not argueing that articles shouldn't be eddited by everybody. This, while as has been stated, can be done with poor etiquette I agree it is part of posting things on the wiki. It even says so as you have quoted. However a number of people do not check history or discussion pages, and it's nice to have people know it was you who developed the page. I also think that more people stick around to help others with the page than you think, I'm constantly going through all my pages, either checking them for comments or revising them.

In the end I do agree with some of your points, but wish to stick with my original position. I think authors are a good idea, and why would they have been added in the first place if they were all bad?--Vrail 05:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[A] number of people do not check history or discussion pages...

We shouldn't be catering to the people who are doing it wrong, we should be teaching them how to do it right. Besides, if someone's not going to look at the history or discussion page, they probably aren't looking at the author template.

[It's] nice to have people know it was you who developed the page.

Meh. If you need the satisfaction, your name will forever be in the history, and you are free to link to the articles on your userspace. I don't see this as a compelling reason to keep the author template.

I also think that more people stick around to help others with the page than you think...'

I bet more don't than you think :) You can't use yourself as an example, because you are one of the 10% of editors who actually comes back more than once. Trust me, in cleaning up the d20 Modern side of things as well as several hundred deletion candidates, I can tell you that there are tons of people who never stay for more than 1 week, tops. But the site's only 4 years old; what happens a year for now, or two, or ten? If we assume that the site exists forever, then eventually every editor will leave and never come back.

[Why] would they have been added in the first place if they were all bad?

I don't know why they were added, but people rarely do things knowing they aren't going to work out well. You do them, then later figure out they didn't work well.

Remember, not having the word "author" on the top doesn't stop you from acting like one. If you create a page and someone comes along and changes a mechanic without explanation, you have every right to change it back, whether or not it's your name on the top of the page. But that's a product of wiki etiquette, not a product of who was the first person to edit the page.

So in the end, what's changed by removing the author template? Sure, you lose (some) recognition, and that's hard for some people to swallow. I have created very little original content on this wiki, and the few things I have created have gone unnoticed by the community, and yes, it made me a little sad. But I know that anyone who comes along a week or a month or a decade from now can look at the pages and say "hey, I really like this, I wonder who wrote it?" and only be a couple clicks from finding out it was me.

What else do you lose? I can't think of anything. But what do you gain? Things might actually get done, instead of waiting for a long-gone author's permission to correct spelling and grammar errors. People won't have a false sense of ownership over pages (I don't pretend to know all the things that have gone on in this wiki before I got here, but from what I do understand, this single fact could have solved a lot of it). New users won't be so intimidated and will contribute more and stay longer. We can progress to a community of discussion and move away from one of unilateral action.

I'm not trying to be biased in my assessment, but I really don't see the costs/benefits favoring keeping the templates. JazzMan 06:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

lol, nice counters to my points. :P However I am one of those authors who finds it hard to swollow loosing some recognition. Also, many new users, if the author isn't presented on the main page then they won't know were to find it if they like the page. Instead of not having authors, we could just make it clear that you have full creative principle with others articles and can edit constructively, as the box usually states. As well, for things such as classes and races, yes, some people do get to overprotective of their articles. However, if somebody came along and started making major changes to my campaign setting, which I have invested many hours into, then I would be a bit displeased. Although I do have to agree with your point that it would be less intimidating for new users. However for this to happen, we would have to make it clear that all posts are comunity developed instead of just not including authors.

You are slowly convincing me, but remember, I do have a biased assesment of things, seeing as I have always loved being able to see authors, and having people be able to see myself as an author. So therefore I may not be the best candidate to discuss this with. :P--Vrail 06:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"I also think that more people stick around to help others with the page than you think, I'm constantly going through all my pages, either checking them for comments or revising them."

Of course keep in mind "If necessary please use the "Watch this page" checkbox before creating the page. Keep in mind "my preferences" → "E-mail me when a page I'm watching is changed". Your username or IP address will be recorded in the new pages history for authorship purposes." (Add Instructions).

"[Why] would they have been added in the first place if they were all bad?"

Blue Dragon made it since he felt people should have a sense of authorship. Over time this has been shown to be counter-productive.

As Jazzman831 said "People won't have a false sense of ownership over pages ... We can progress to a community of discussion and move away from one of unilateral action."

And I would like to give an example. Quite a while ago I made the Flying Archer (3.5e Prestige Class) and then decided that authorship should be disregarded as the editing method. As such I put it up for adoption (as this was the 'correct' way to approach this at this time (diff) ). Over time my article was changed quite a bit and a picture was added (diff). As a person I still feel a sense of "ownership" of this article. My plan? A while ago I looked at the Flying Archer and thought maybe I should just revert it. However I saw some merit and ideas. So, now when I have some extra time, I am planning on piping in on the discussion and helping to make it 'good' as I see it. So, what is authorship? If I had kept my name on it all the new merit and ideas would never be able to be seen, and I think it would have actually ultimately hindered the future of the Flying Archer. --Green Dragon 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's called having two articles with different names and different authors. You should try it some time. -- Jota 18:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You can look at it like that, and please do, however I find that the idea behind a certain creation type should be the best that it can be. --Green Dragon 20:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put the idea to a vote? Clearly among the 5 contributing users commenting on this thread we have a 3-2 split, overall in favor of keeping the author tag(Vrail, Jota(?), and myself for, Green Dragon and Jazzman opposed). I think the fact that "wiki" is in the name of the website should be a hint enough that you can edit freely any article you want. Also, I believe your welcome message encourages editing of all articles. Finally, we don't know what would have happened if you had left your authorship on that page. It's just as likely that someone would have seen it, and left their comments on the talk page and you (as the author) could have started a dialog about what should go and what should stay. If you didn't want to be in charge of leading that dialog, by all means throw on the adoption template and walk away, but many of us are in favor of being the main contributor to our work. I personally don't think we all should forfeit our rights to credit and ownership because you did it once and it turned out ok. To me that is likely the exception, not the rule. Look at how many unfinished articles are up for adoption but remain the same, and how many with authors are being changed and collaborated on. One other note, looking at the talk page, it looks like most of the changes occurred after adoption (when a new user name was on it) and most of the contributions were by names I recognize to be "editing buddies" of the adopter. By "editing buddies", I mean wiki-friends who all contribute on each others talk pages all the time. I saw no new editors, merely conversation between comrades suggesting things to the adoptive editor. Quite frankly, it may only have been adopted because you, Green Dragon, are the one who put it up for adoption. I know I'd be curious to see something you wrote. --Badger 20:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

This is not a voting issue. Voting is used when options are equivalent or have to be classified as equivalent (e.g. taste).

What are the options? (a) To use history for authorship purposes (see also Add Instructions) or (b) use Template:Author and history for authorship purposes.

Why are (a) and (b) not equivalent? Since they do not serve the same purpose. Template:Author is a template with a creation date, username & options for contact, and an 'overall' editing summary. Although these are equivalent to the history tab in presence, they are not comprehensive. This non-comprehensive aspect makes them not equivalent.

Although they are not equivalent (the history tab and Template:Author) why not just add it onto the page to add another aspect to the page, fulfilling the criteria of (b)? This is where this discussion has its core. My answer is because the non-comprehensive aspect can be deceiving. It can appear to many as a comprehensive history tab, making it deceiving to users which may not understand tabs (e.g. User talk:Green Dragon#Ganteka) and through the process disregarding some users.

I ask anyone to give their input to the question of "Although they are not equivalent (the history tab and Template:Author) why not just add it onto the page to add another aspect to the page?" --Green Dragon 17:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Ganteka section you pointed out is a prime example of why author templates would help. If Axl could have seen "Author: 238.346.23.6785" up in the main info box he would not have assumed that Ganteka wrote it. As to perceived comprehensiveness, I think we both know that's silly. No one expects a page on a wiki to have a single contributor, that's not how wikis work. If anyone sees an author tag and thinks "Well, I can't edit this page because it belongs to that guy" the problem is with teaching how wikis work. I understand that somewhere we should have a comprehensive list of who contributed what to where, but I don't think that means we have to get rid of an author template. History is important, and I don't think we should ever get rid of it (I don't even think we can, that's kinda the point), but I don't see any problem with having a single line that says "Author: Badger". --Badger 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the author and adopters parameters. The pages, of course, need to be fixed however. --Green Dragon 13:25, 11 January 2011 (MST)