Template talk:WotV Dragon Sigil

Campaign Setting Categories

Please understand, if the pages marked with this banner are part of a campaign setting, then they need to be affiliated via the proper categories so that they are properly picked up and/or excluded by our DPL parameters.

Furthermore, as I've explained before, authorship, insofar as stating a page is yours goes, does not exist on this wiki. You're more than welcome to curate your work and manage additions, but adding "Dark Dragon's Content" isn't appropriate. Of secondary note is that the category, itself, is a red-category without any content. --Jwguy (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (MDT)

I'm well aware that the red Category is empty. It's not marking it with authorship. I use it to manage the content that is post. It's hard to keep track of several pages so this helps me, but if it's that much of a problem, I'll change it. However, next time you think something should be changed, can you please just put it in the talk tab first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Dragon (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 October 2016. Please sign your posts.

Honestly, I didn't expect something so small - that has every reason to be changed to conform to standards, even outside of authorship - would have affected any of your content in any way, so I did not consider it to be so much of 'change' but rather 'housekeeping', and therefore did not think to go to talk about it first (nor do I think it should really require that, but I digress). While I can't claim the same edit count as, say, Marasmusine for example, I am still an administrator and such things are my duty to correct them when I notice them.

In any case, please understand that the categories do serve a functional purpose on the wiki; this isn't me picking on you, specifically. --Jwguy (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2016 (MDT)

My Edits

I removed the link to the user's userpage since IMO, that qualifies as declaring authorship on the page itself, which is against policy. I also removed the left-hand image because I found it difficult to read the text on account of the low-resolution and poor choice of colors. If you can find one that puts less strain on the eyes, I'd love to see it added (I didn't have an issue with the appearance of the image so much as the problems it posed). Finally, I removed Category:Similar Content since that seems to serve the same purpose as the campaign setting category. No reason to fill multiple pages with redundant categories :)--GamerAim (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a debate about attribution, but I feel that it must be said that the whole purpose of this wiki is to share content, no? And if say for instance, someone browsing the wiki sees something that they like and they want to see more by the person who created the page, having the similar content Catagory or a link to my user page would be helpful in that regard, yes? I know our opinions differ, but I don't feel like either of those are attribution, and if they are, then it should be OK to do that because, at the end of the day, I want people to see the things I have made. Attribution exists for a reason aside from legal reasons. People like to be recognized for there work. I consider these pages similar in fashion to art, and by extension the creators as artists. All artists sign their work in some way and this is my way. As for the similar content Category, that is actually different from the from the Wrath of the Vilebloods Setting category. It encompasses all the pages that I've made, including items that are not specifically part of the setting. Finally, concerning the picture, I'm simply going to keep the picture as is because it says nothing important and I like the image. --Dark Dragon (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you feel so strongly about the image, I'll concede that edit. But attribution is a VERY serious no-no, largely because of the history tab. Additionally, people who want to see your creations can find them here. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, it's just the rules :(--GamerAim (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

See, the thing is, the contributions page is an awful system and the average visitor or page viewer won't use the history tab or even know what it's for. I speak from personal experience when I say this. When I first joined and for the following year after, I always thought that it was for the page editors, and since I don't make it a habit of making major edits without bringing it up on the discussion tab, I never used it. I only found out what it does out of sheer curiosity. And as I said before, the contributionspell page is awful. It's unorganized and shows every time a user edits something, as opposed to every page the user creates. In addition to that, it is not easy to find and the average visitor will not go searching from Heaven to Hell to find it. They're going to move on. And by the rules, I'm not allowed to link my name. Everything I try is seen as attribution. You see where I'm coming from? --Dark Dragon (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Using your suggestions, I have created Help:Attribution, and included a bit about how to sort contributions by page creations only. I understand you might not find it very convenient, but I hope that help article goes some way to amending the issue, as now new users will learn how to do it :) And if that isn't good enough, you can always compile a list of pages on your user page. That's something I see a lot of users doing.--GamerAim (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I like that you are speaking honestly, and with a reasonable tone here. Reading what you are writing, just gave me an idea. I would appreciate your opinion with this idea.

How would you feel if Template:Locked Page included a parameter for the user who requested the lock to appear (and a contributions list link per desire)? We would then make one just against IP users too. Thus, you would have attribution and the page is also part of a secondary structure. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party, but: I agree with the dragons here. I think having an attribution section on the locked page template would be beneficial. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 18:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I told GD this in chat and was waiting for DD to respond before publicly saying it, but I find GD's solution an acceptable compromise and am willing to help implement it if that's what he wants.--GamerAim (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I thing GD's solution is a happy Medium. I'm all for it. Please implement it when you can. --Dark Dragon (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2017 (MDT)