Talk: Editing guidelines

Opening up categories

Consolidating discussions from Category talk:Creatures and Category talk:Level 1 Spell and Category talk:Fighter archetypes...
I officially propose that we add categories from all editions, rather than limiting the options to 5e categories. Currently the options for something not described in the 5e rules are to either assign a 5e category based on our opinion of what it is (which creates potential inaccuracies now, and further problems if canon changes again) or to leave out that information entirely (which makes this wiki less useful). I see two broad ways to achieve this:

1. Categorize things with every possible category label, but don't distinguish by edition, to limit the number of categories. Slaad would be something like Outsider creatures, Chaos subtype creatures, Elemental creatures, Humanoid creatures, and Aberration creatures.
2. Label each edition's version of each category separately, to make it extra clear. For example, Slaad could be Outsider creatures (3e), Chaos subtype creatures (3e), Elemental creatures (4e), Humanoid creatures (4e), and Aberration creatures (5e).

In either case, I don't think edition labels would be needed for edition-specific terms such as "Character kit" or "Epic spell", only in cases where the same term has been used differently across multiple editions (like with the Slaad, above). We also may decide that we want edition-specific labels for some things (creature types, spell schools) but not others (spell levels, or what class a spell belongs to). Though I recommend we pick one approach and stick with it, for consistency's sake.
If we do one of those, we make the wiki not only as informative as possible, but also more accessible to fans of older editions, who don't have to guess at what we labeled things when browsing categories. A 3.5 fan can just go to the Outsider category to find Slaad or the like. I understand the intent of keeping things simple, but I think it has too many downsides.
And, while I also understand the intention of placing things in the deepest relevant category... why shouldn't someone be able to find Waterdeep in the Settlements category, too? What if I don't know whether a settlement qualifies as a city, or a village, or the like?
I think we should aim to be flexible with categories, because they're easy to add and make it easier for users to find information. And if they start to get really out of control, we can always reign it in at that point... JEB1981 (talk) 04:59, November 28, 2019 (UTC)

• I want to avoid edition-specific categories. While monster categories are based on the 5e monster types, they are not limited to 5e: they include all monsters which fit that description regardless of the edition they appeared in.
  A primary goal of this wiki is to collect information from past editions, most of which will never appear in 5e due to the low number of 5e sourcebooks published each year, and make it available to current and future players in an edition-agnostic format. With that goal, I do not wish to exclude, say, hierarch modrons from Category:Construct creatures simply because modrons had outsider type in 3e and only the base modrons appeared in 5e; or exclude the basidrond from Category:Plant creatures because AD&D had no such thing as monster categorization.
  I do not consider it a violation of canon, for example, to categorize far realm dwelling kaorti are aberrations, since the wiki's creature categories are based on the 5e types, by which definition they are aberrations. In other words, the wiki categories reflect a particular idiosyncratic definition of each monster type, not a formal per-edition definition.
  Note that I previously argued that the Xill were fiends based on the 3e definition of fiend. This was incorrect of me, as the categories should follow the 5e definition of fiend. Thank you for your input, which helped me to clarify the definition of these categories. BeardWizard (talk) 22:14, November 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • 1) Just to be clear, this discussion isn't just about monsters. It's also about classes, and locations, and spells, and anything that can be placed in multiple categories.
    2) It's easy to class hierarch modrons like other modrons, or basidironds like plants. What about the xill? An outsider in 3e, and we agree it's not a fiend in 5e, but what is it now? An aberration? A monstrous humanoid? Something else? Whatever you assign, you will be guessing; and your guess may turn into misinformation, if it later conflicts with an official 5e version. And there are plenty of other hard-to-define creatures like this in earlier editions, especially in 2e.
    3) If you want to avoid edition-specific categories, why are you using the 5e categories, and their specific definitions, at all? It seems your goal would be better served by original category systems for monsters etc. that can cover all cases from 3e, 4e, and 5e. (Edit: On a closer look, I see your categories aren't identical to 5e's - you use "animal" instead of "beast", for example. The problem is, they're close enough to 5e's to be unintentionally misleading; and they also mix in some 3e terms that had more specific meanings. Lest you doubt this is a problem, consider that I didn't even notice until just now...)
    4) What harm is done by including other editions' categories? What harm is done by labeling the slaad an outsider, an elemental humanoid, AND an aberration? What harm is there in noting all the classes that can cast a spell? What harm is there in making Waterdeep a settlement and a city? JEB1981 (talk) 01:54, November 29, 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, now that I understand your creature categories use terms from multiple previous editions, but in a slightly different way from those editions, I don't think I can support using them as the only categorization scheme. Because:
      a) unless it's a clear case like modrons, editors will inevitably place creatures in the wrong category, and your categories will gradually become less and less clear to any reader (and require a lot of cleanup work on your part, because only you know how);
      b) some users will have no idea where to place a monster, and no idea where to browse for a particular type, if there are multiple qualifying categories, discouraging use of the categories as a tool (the Xill already illustrates this problem, as at least three of your categories could apply);
      c) users (like me) who take for granted that you would be using official D&D terminology will make assumptions about a category that you don't intend, such as "Animal" not being the category for "Beasts" or "Vermin" (as was the case in 3e).
      If you really want to have overarching monster categories, they need to use terms that have never actually been used as creature types in D&D, to avoid these sorts of confusion. But because confusion is even a possibility (and has actually happened to me!), I truly think that the best option is to stick with the categories that Wizards of the Coast has used in the past, and permit creatures (and all articles) to be placed in any applicable categories. This will make the wiki easier to use and easier to edit. JEB1981 (talk) 07:31, November 29, 2019 (UTC)
      • Right now, I want editors to focus on writing articles rather than devising the most precise possible categorization system up-front. The wiki's primary purpose is presenting lore. The exact manner in which that lore is categorized is of secondary importance. BeardWizard (talk) 08:20, November 29, 2019 (UTC)
        • If article content is (quite understandably!) more important to you than sticking to a particular organizational scheme, why not open things up? I'm not necessarily arguing for abolishing overarching categories, if you're really attached to them (though I do think there are issues with the overarching creature categories that need addressed at some point, as discussed above). I simply want myself and other editors to be able to add additional categories as we see fit, especially canonical categories from the D&D rulebooks. JEB1981 (talk) 02:58, November 30, 2019 (UTC)
          • While I understand that organizing content well can be rewarding, I fundamentally cannot allow editors to add categories at will. It would be directly counter to the site's purpose for a few reasons:
            1. It's bikeshedding—expending time and energy on easily grasped but relatively unimportant details, instead of on the project's primary task. While we're debating what type slaadi and modrons are, the wiki has no pages for those creatures at all. We have already spent considerably more words arguing the xill's type than we have improving that article. People will still find a poorly-categorized article on Google.
            2. The number of categories which an editor could add is unlimited. On the Forgotten Realms wiki, fireball has 29 categories, while cure wounds has 60. Left unchecked, editors could add any amount of categories. It's a wiki, not a database; categories are only there to allow browsing, not to put an article in every possible pigeonhole.
            3. In order for a category to be useful, all pages on the wiki to which it applies must be included. Each additional category places a burden of work on editors, who must category tag it. Also, if we put an article in all possible subcategories (e.g. all monsters in the root Category:Creatures), this additionally adds extra work.
            4. A goal of the site is to be edition-neutral, and I do not want to add categories which compromise that. An "outsider" category, for example, is not edition neutral; it applies to only 3e monsters. It is one thing to say that hierarch modrons should be constructs according a certain 5e-based definition. However, an "Outsider" category would either exclude extraplanar creatures which never appeared in 3e (which would break edition-neutrality), or would require editors to add non-3e creatures to the 3e category (which would create categorization work). BeardWizard (talk) 05:51, November 30, 2019 (UTC)
• 1. With all due respect, the only reason so much time has been spent on this thread, that could otherwise be spent on article editing, is because you're defaulting to keeping things exactly as they are now, when I have repeatedly elaborated on why that creates problems. And once again, if categorization isn't as important as article content, why are you so determined to keep the current scheme? (I also feel I should note that I have in fact been editing articles between updates to this discussion. So have you.)
  2. Having vast numbers of categories can be a problem, theoretically. Pre-emptively limiting categories to a strict hierarchy, and forbidding any expansions to that hierarchy, is a massive and stifling over-correction to that problem. And it requires others to understand a very specific scheme that only you fully understand. I would also point out that other users have already been ignoring your hierarchy and adding their own categories, often reflective of specific editions - as if such categories come more naturally to them, in fact. What do you suppose will happen if the wiki does become popular? Do you plan to singlehandedly enforce your current scheme?
  3. First of all, it's fine for articles to be added to additional categories as time goes on, without pre-emptively determining every possible relevant category. Wikis are designed to be improved with time, after all. Secondly, I don't think this adds nearly as much work as you think it will. Adding categories is shockingly easy here compared to other wikis I've worked on.
  4a. It will be very difficult to make this wiki completely edition-neutral, because all sorts of lore details have changed between editions. (I suppose it can be achieved if you carefully prune articles only to what every edition has agreed on, but that makes for a less useful wiki.) I think it is much better to make this wiki edition-inclusive, explaining what elements are common in the lore, and what has changed between editions. A wide array of categories, reflecting official categories from prior and current editions, will aid users in navigating these differences.
  4b. If we add an Outsider category, why not limit it to "creatures that had the Outsider creature type in D&D 3rd edition"? Why do we have to guess at what monsters from other editions might count as outsiders at all? Also, it may be unclear to users what monsters may go into a category like "Monstrous creatures", but a category for Elemental creatures as designated in 4th edition is very clear. As Wizards themselves has been inconsistent in these definitions over time (see the slaad's three distinct descriptors in three different editions), I also think there's a distinct degree of risk in even trying to assign anything to a category that isn't extremely obvious (and perhaps not even then - we're not here to make things up, we're here to document).
  5. I also feel the need to stress that I didn't understand your creature categories until yesterday. (I'm still pretty unclear on the lines between some of them, to be honest.) If they weren't intuitive to me, how useful and clear will they be to other users?
  I'm sorry, but I just don't think this current scheme is enough. JEB1981 (talk) 06:42, November 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • 1. While you have elaborated on the issues of the current categorization system, I have also elaborated on why expanding that system would create more issues.
    2. It is not the case that users have ignored the site's category hierarchy. Those articles which do not follow it are legacy content; that is, articles from 2010-2018 which were already there when I adopted the site in 2018, which amount to about half of the site's pages. Most of these are spells, which I haven't had time to edit.
    4a. The wiki's edition-neutral policy holds that lore from every edition is valid. In the result of a contradiction, newer material supercedes former (see adamantine for an example of an article which handles major contradictions well). A core principle of this wiki is to take information buried in past out-of-print sourcebooks and present it to current players; another is that lore content should be written from an in-world perspective; another principle is that all D&D worlds and elements are part of the same D&D multiverse. The 5e mind flayer and AD&D mind flayer are the same thing; there is no AD&D mind flayers lore vs 5e mind flayers lore; even the 4e lore is true within 4e's campaign setting, itself still one world within the D&D multiverse. It sounds like you would rather divide lore into 1e lore, 3e lore, 5e lore and so on. That approach would be fundamentally incompatible with the site's principles.
    5. You are correct that the creature categories require improvement, and I do appreciate your feedback on the potential ambiguity of the fiend category's definition. Due to a lack of editors (partly because the top search hits for "D&D Wiki" lead to homebrew wikis, partly because more people want to invent game content than to scour AD&D sourcebooks for obscure details), a great deal of the wiki's core infrastructure is still incomplete. My intent was to create an amount of site content first, then step back and see what information the categories, infoboxes and page structure needs to include to serve that content. I intentionally added very simple definitions on the category page Category:Creatures to let editors know how to categorize their content; I assumed these would have been straightforward to understand, but it appears they require additional clarification.BeardWizard (talk) 19:02, November 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should set aside the issues we disagree over, and focus instead on your initial suggestion: whether or not categories should be added to reflect edition-specific monster types of 3e and 4e.
    Giving it some thought, I suspect you may be right. Most monster articles currently only appear in one category, and adding edition-specific categories would only add two or three categories to most monsters (3e type, 4e origin, and 4e type), most of which could be added programmatically from the 3e Monster Index and 4e D&D Compendium, making this relatively low-work. It would resolve future disputes, and categories can easily be removed later if they turn out to be a mistake, meaning these new categories would be low-risk. The wiki's existing categories should be formalized to adhere to the 5e type descriptions to remove ambiguity and more closely represent 5e monster types.
    However, given the wiki's pan-edition primary goal, I intend for the current categories to include all monsters, not just 5e monsters. Hence, while the Xill can appear in a category like "Outsiders (3e)", it must also appear in at least one of the edition-neutral categories. BeardWizard (talk) 20:02, November 30, 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, that all seems fair. The key thing for me was making sure users of prior editions had some familiar ground to tread, and this approach would permit that.
      For now, perhaps the Xill (and similarly tough-to-classify monsters - Planescape's rilmani is another that came to mind) can go in the catch-all "Monstrous" category? Or, if you're going to revert that to 5e's "Monstrosity" (and animal to "Beast"?), perhaps create a new catch-all category? Like "mystery" creatures or something?
      I should also note that like you, I was disappointed by the homebrew focus of the other general D&D wikis. The setting-specific wikis are generally better, but their focus is too narrow. This place, however, has a lot of potential. I am actually trying to do what I can to attract attention here, by adding articles on material relevant to 5e fandom, and was also going to try and recruit folks from other places (especially those, like me, disappointed by Wikipedia's restrictive D&D policies). I was starting to doubt if this place was for me, but now that we seem to have come to terms, I feel much more optimistic! JEB1981 (talk) 21:20, November 30, 2019 (UTC)

Italic names

Per discussion at Talk:Chronomancer_(2e)#Italic_names, I would like to amend the "Spelling and grammar conventions" section as follows:

• Don't capitalize spell or item names. This follows the convention of D&D 3rd and 5th edition. Do make [[wiki links]]. Italics, as used in D&D 5th edition and earlier, are also recommended to help distinguish spells or items from generic terms (for example, light vs. light, with the latter being the spell).
  • Exception: Do capitalize proper nouns and the names of artifacts. For example, Sword of Kas; Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion.

Reiterating my reasoning from the above-linked discussion:

1. Italics immediately convey that something is a spell or item, and do so more efficiently than phrasing such as "the light spell".
2. Italics are pretty easy to apply in both visual and source editing
3. Italics are consistent with the source material, and help convey a feel that this is an extension of that material. JEB1981 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Note, I'd be fine with an exception for artifacts, since they're capitalized and easy to distinguish as items... but as that would create inconsistency it's better to stick with D&D sourcebook conventions and make it all italic. JEB1981 (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. I've decided to approve the change you've recommended. While I want to limit the amount of busywork editors have to do, I see the benefit of adhering to the convention of italics for spells and items, widely used throughout D&D sourcebooks of multiple editions, as well as standard on some other D&D wikis.

I've created two templates, {{item}} and {{spell}}, also abbreviated to {{i}} and {{s}} respectively. Currently they just create a link with italics; e.g. {{s|fireball}} appears as fireball. At some point I may insert special code to handle spell/item names requiring disambiguation (e.g. if "light" was at "light (spell)", the template might handle this by automatically redirecting the link to "light (spell)"). BeardWizard (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and those templates should also be helpful! JEB1981 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)