PathfinderWiki
Log in

Forum:Inclusion of spells in wiki

From PathfinderWiki
Forums: Grand Lodge > Inclusion of spells in wiki

So here's my opinion. We have a ton of material to include here in the wiki. Spells are IMO very low on that list. The only time I have created a page for a spell (using the {{Template:Spell}}), is when a particular spell is mentioned as being intrinsic or important to the description of a topic we would cover in more detail in the wiki. So, for instance, I created a page for the faerie fire spell only because the description of Sothis' Black Dome stated that it has permanent versions of the spells on its interior. That seems like a reasonable bar to set for the creation of whole pages for a spell. Of course, if someone LOVED spells more than apple pie a la mode, I wouldn't want to stop him or her (but given our history, 100% chance of him) from creating pages about spells to his heart's content. I'm just saying that from my own perspective, this seems like a reasonable bar to set for the inclusion of spells in the wiki. How does everyone else feel?
On a completely unrelated note, has there EVER been a female editor of the wiki? I don't know of one; at least no one has identified themselves as such in my history here (and I've been here since 2008).
Liz Courts posted a few art/maps she did up for us

Low on my list too Brandingopportunity and crunchy to boot. Could we not link to the spells details on a 'sister' site like the d20pfsrd which would be complete? Failing that your logic is sound.

Thing is, the spells exist in the world. And it's entirely possible to describe one without resorting to things like casting time, range, duration, and mechanical effects. I'd prefer not to direct people away from the site, as once someone's gone, we risk them not coming back. Instead, I think BrandingOpportunity is on the right track; we make articles for spells when they are needed, but otherwise we focus on more useful content. Though I don't know if we really need to outline what we should and shouldn't work on. I think the less we micromanage who edits what the more welcoming the community is.
I wasn't trying to create a new rule, I was simply stating my own opinion and wanted to know where other people stood.
I'm in general agreement here as well. Spells do fall on the crunchy side, but can be described in a fluffy way. Also, I think that doing up pages as necessary is the way to go.
As if on cue, we just had two female users request accounts today. One of them has already made an edit. Ask and you shall receive, BrOp!
Nice! Knock, and the door WILL be opened!
Melon!
Wait, that doesn't make any sense. I thought we were doing quotes from the Bible, and now you've gone all Dada on me. Which is fine, I guess. Ahem ...
A melon? That boggles all definitions of impossibility! Why not square the root and find the answer?
There, that should take care of it.
I agree: adding spell articles as they are needed to illustrate concepts and ideas in other articles seems to be an appropriate guideline.
I left out an "l" in the Elvish word for friend. It was a Doors of Durin reference, riffing off your "door will be opened" comment, but I screwed it up. "Mellon" is what I meant to say...no going to Moria for me, I guess.