Template talk:Project Completeness0

Okay, this was created as a testbed since the current project completeness template looks like ass with the homebrew disclaimer. I've got it currently showing here, but I'm still not happy with it. Attempts to incorporate it into the author template to tweak the order were unsuccessful, for reasons I'm not actually clear on. So I'm looking for ideas on making this functional and not ugly with the homebrew disclaimer.

My current thought is to just scrap the template entirely, and run the functionality out of the author box so that it lists the completion at the bottom of the box. It makes for a potentially long author block on projects though. I don't have a mockup of this yet, but I think the old style author block used to do this and it wasn't awesome. So I'd appreciate some alternative thoughts. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, but that homebrew disclaimer is rather horrid looking, not to mention.... why? I hear it was from someone's complaint in GtiP, but it sounds like a pretty nonsensical argument. Course, I'm going off 3rd hand information here so I just need to figure out what happened to have that come up. -- Eiji-kun 08:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Because if someone who is relatively new to the whole D&D thing comes along to dnd-wiki and sees a piece of homebrew and does not know what homebrew, he is potentially liable to assume that it is real material from Wizards of the Coast and use it, whether broken or not. It is catering to the lowest common denominator, in order to make the site more user friendly towards everyone and, by such an extent, an attempt to grow the community. --Dr Platypus 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definite catering to the LCD in an attempt to diffuse some perceived frustration with the sight. The scenario goes like this:

1. Random person googles DnD thing
2. Random person finds site, and finds material that they want to use
3. Random person gets to use it in game, because random DM isn't checking closely either
   1. Corollary - Balance is probably off with this material. My contention is that this is because most non-forum based, random person games are Fighter level.
4. Random DM realizes something is up, and everyone is mad at us for not making it more clear that it wasn't published WotC material
5. Someone in random group relays their story to their friend on GitP, who continues the dislike

Now, I actually think this situation is pretty unlikely. The actual site in the complaints is paleowiki, which doesn't have an author block with the words "author" in it at the top of the page. While I think that makes a substantial difference, the (IMO small) sample set was either unable or unwilling to distinguish between the cases. So this, to me, looks like a straightforward attempt to resolve an issue voiced by a small minority about a different site, a solution to a problem that it isn't even clear is ours. But it was a relatively easy thing to patch, and if it will generate good will and further set us apart from paleowiki, it seemed a reasonable thing to do.

That said, actual complaints about the template, including it's existence, should be over here. I'm pretty indifferent to it either way at this point. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)