Template talk:Musicus

Shouldn't this information go on a page's talk page, rather than the top chunk of the page itself (where to me it looks the scoring system look "official" (for the wiki). Marasmusine (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

I don't know. :) I made the thing at James' request because the system is his creation, and I feel he deserves credit for it. More importantly, I wanted to show that a scoring system exists and that it was used on the content. I was considering making one for the Marasmusine system too. On the other hand, if we have a template for every dang reviewing system someone invents, things will get ugly. In a similar vein, I was considering making a template to declare whether something has been test played. I haven't done that either because, again, things could get cluttered. Putting these kinds of things on the talk page keeps the content page clean, but also hides whether or not it's been reviewed or tested for balance. People want a way to know if something has been balanced or not, and what the standard of reference was. --Kydo (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

Definitely a talk page thing, and I think that even this template should be placed on talk pages so we don't confuse users. Lets stick with the Meta Pages so we don't get some weird mess discourse. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

OK, how's that then? --Kydo (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

Fine with me! Marasmusine (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

Should you change {{Design Disclaimer}} to allow for these type of self-made templates (e.g. See Talk), so that they can circumvent other Improving, Removing, and Removing templates? I don't think this wold be a terrible idea, but there may be something that I forgetting or missing. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

Do you mean like this?

Oh my. That's not what was supposed to happen. I'll tinker with it later so that can be done. --Kydo (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

WTF?

This template was created at the request of James Musicus, in order to respect him and his work while also making it available for use on this wiki. It's also here to increase the visibility of our community's standards of quality, encourage people to follow those standards, and to give users some idea of whether something is trustworthy or not. --Kydo (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

Has anyone asked him if we can reproduce his rating system on our wiki (as a locked page, under a difference license if he prefers)? If he wants us to make a template on D&D Wiki, the least he can do is let us internally link it.--GamerAim (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2017 (MST)

I don't believe this page deserves to be deleted. Wouldn't it be easier to just say in the template that it should go on the talk page, if you feel like it's really that misleading? This rating system is fan-made, yes, but it's well-thought out and highly respected within the larger D&D community. Like Kydo said above, it encourages people to follow standards and gives users some idea of whether a page is trustworthy. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 08:48, 7 November 2017 (MST)

There's still the issue, in my opinion, of this guy (according to Kydo) requesting that we make a template for his system, but not hosting the system here. If he wants us to support his personal rating system, it should be a two-way street.

Additionally, as someone who advocated for the creation of the homebrew banner, you should know that it's unfair of us to expect people to read rules or know what the site is about. If we have a rating template, they might expect that the rating system is endorsed when it's not. As with the homebrew banner, I think it's better to be safe than sorry and err on the side of convenience for the average user. If we can avoid these misunderstandings before they happen, I think that's a step we should take for the community.--GamerAim (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (MST)

I believe the template is confusing and redundant and that it should not be put on races to make them appear balanced and official. I agree with the points GamerAim have made so far, in that the system is fan-made and should not be used as the de-facto standard of what a balanced race looks like. Also, even without the template, users can still use the Musicus' Meter to help balance races.--Blobby383b (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2017 (MST)

If you're worried about it being endorsed by us, or users being mislead, plaster in big words on the template itself: "This template is not endorsed by D&D Wiki, and should only be placed on an article's talk page as a commentary, not part of the main article.". This should be enough for users to recognise that this is unofficial, simple commentary.

The Musicus scale has good uses and, for better or worse, a lot of active homebrewers put stock into it. At the end of the day, having this handy template around is, well, handy. My biggest issue is actually that it'll become pretty irrelevant after any edits, I'd argue we should find some way to link it to a particular revision of a page. --SgtLion (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2017 (MST)

That doesn't solve the other issue, which is that this James guy apparently wants us to support his rating system, but we aren't storing it locally. I think, under the circumstances, that if he wants any sort of support from us, he should return it. And until he lets us host his system here, I will continue to disagree with this template's existence. If anyone has a way to contact the guy, I'd appreciate you doing so to get permission.--GamerAim (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2017 (MST)

Obviously, if James wants that, he's more than welcome to work within our policies or discuss with us to do whatever. I don't see what relation his desires have to this template, which, as far as I can see, is just a neat way to display a score that people like to display. --SgtLion (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2017 (MST)

According to Kydo, "This template was created at the request of James Musicus" and I'm not comfortable abiding by his requests if he's not willing to work with us.--GamerAim (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2017 (MST)

If a friend of mine asked me to make an article on their behalf, nobody would (I assume) be uncomfortable with that. Are the author's intentions important to the merit of an article? If you prefer, I'll delete the page and remake in my ooown image~ --SgtLion (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2017 (MST)

I spoke to GA and Sgt just now and I've sent a message to Musicus since I spoke to him recently in regards to another matter. The message is as follows: "Hey, so the reason why I use your guide a lot is that I'm a curator on D&D Wiki and recently people have been talking about your guide and how to implement it better with the site as I believe you requested that we make a template for it. The admins said they would be more than happy to as long as you allowed them to host the musicus rating system locally and of course they'd be willing to protect it from outside admin edits so no one messes it up. Would you be fine with that?" ConcealedLight (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2017 (MST)

I messaged James and got a reply basically instantly. (Sorry CL <3). His reply:

"As long as my system is unmodified and attributed, I'm fine with it. I would like to know exactly what would end up on the page (since my race catalog is tied to my scoring system) but I don't see any problems with you hosting most of it over at dandwiki.

I do also know its been a really long time since I updated it. You should list the revision as 3-4-2016, and do let me know if there's anything people think it needs. I haven't received any feedback that the system needs updating, so I've just let it sit, but I'm still open to changing things if I hear about it."

So there we go, all good. I'm not familiar with of the Musicus system. Could somebody clarify 'exactly what would end up on the page'? Or, if it's simple enough, just go ahead and transcribe it to.. some page. Help:Musicus Rating, maybe? I'm not sure where it would go. If we can get a simple transcription up, we can just double check that it works for James before finalising it. Plus whoo, he's open to any feedback we might have. As I say, I've no idea about it, but if nobody else is interested in transcribing it, I'll have a look eventually. --SgtLion (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2017 (MST)

It's alright as long as we got our response :P I'll transcribe it since I use it a lot anyways. ConcealedLight (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2017 (MST)

This is all fine and good information to me. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2017 (MST)

Deletion (again)

Users Blobby383b and BigShotFancyMan have expressed some concern over this template, as I have in the past, and the Musicus Meter in general. Now while I understand the Musicus Meter is a valuable tool used by prolific users such as ConcealedLight, the template continues to create strife in the community because not everyone wants to be associated with it. And when two people collaborate on a page, and one user places this template on the talk page, it gives the impression that both people condone and endorse the Musicus Meter when that's not the case. As a wiki, we have to be mindful of other editors, and I think in this case it'd be easier to discontinue the use of this template instead of misleading casual readers or breaching the personal preferences of those users who don't want to associate with the Musicus Meter.

I am not suggesting that we ban all mention or use of any meters, just that we don't plaster public, seemingly-unanimous, endorsement of any one meter for a page. While this may not be the intent of the template, it's clear to me that it's how it's coming off. This is why I'm proposing this page for deletion (again, but for a different reason this time).--GamerAim (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2018 (MST)

The simple edit Geodude671 made of adding "This is a guideline, and it's important to use your own judgment alongside the meter." pretty much solves my issues with the meter, as previously it appeared that a race had to abide by this scoring system which the wiki doesn't endorse. The only other major issue I saw that came up was the near unanimous use of this meter by ConcealedLight on races, and their intent to balance all the races on the wiki using the meter, based on the comments made during Geodude's 2nd rfa.

Since the use of the meter was brought up on the rfa, BigShotFancyMan and ConcealedLight have talked a lot about use of the meter on the Talk:5e Race Design Guide, and GamerAim and I as well to a lesser extent on discord. My hope is that through these discussions everyone came to some some sort of reasonable agreement about the use of the agreement, but we will have to wait and see.

As such, I would like to go down as saying that I have no problems with the current version of the meter.--Blobby383b (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2018 (MST)

I agree with you Blobby383b. I do not agree that deleting this meter will bring us any further, or help us reach any sort of concensus. Since the meter is useful for some people, but not bearing for other people, does not mean that deleting it will solve anything. Lets first reach a concensus at Talk:5e Race Design Guide#Wiki Wide Meter Placement, and if deletion turns out to be the result then we will act on it. I'll remove {{delete}} for now. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2018 (MST)

I changed the wording around, based on the concensus. Does it get the usage for this template across well? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2018 (MST)

Thank you. That's a good alternative to complicated if functions :) --GamerAim (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2018 (MST)

Template Wording

Overall good edit. Letting the record show my dislike for this: "but may be included as an accessory to a wider discussion of a race's balance."
Seems like an unnecessary say thing to say. One could mention this template could be excluded to avoid more balance discussion/debate since the meter itself is a little broken. If there is no sentence/statement saying you cannot include this, then I find it implied you're free to discuss the meter rating if you and others want to. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2020 (MDT)