I guess since they have made it so that we have that ugly "This wiki does not yet have a logo" thing, we need a logo. Any ides would be great. Eric42 05:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The first thing I saw when I found this site was that there was no logo (making it look fairly bad). I was thinking that something focusing on a grace would look rather good. I could try to throw something together with Photoshop and so you can see what I mean (let's consider it my first true contribution). Be forewarned though, I am not a great artist. Ixidorsbane 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, and welcome to the wiki. I personally was thinking along the lines of the Sword of Truth itself, but let's see all kinds of suggestions. Eric42 00:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I have two options that I made really quick and would like some opinions:
I was going to try for a grace, but I am seriously bad at drawing stuff, especially in Photoshop, even worse when trying to do it with a mouse. I would really like to try adding a grace in the background of either of them (either just behind the sword, maybe like it's carved into the background like this; or on the pages of the book itself). Also, with the logo being so small, I went ahead and didn't even bother trying to write "TRUTH" on the sword hilt, since you wouldn't be able to make it out anyways. The only way to see it clearly would be to have the entire logo zoomed in on the hilt (and I don't really have the artistic talent to pull off something that detailed). Ixidorsbane 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I love both. I forgot that Wikia has launched that new design, as I still see the wiki as the original design. Anyways, does the images have a gray or invisible background? If it's the latter, we'll try both for a little while and see which one really works. Upload both logos to the wiki and I'll figure out how to get them posted up there. Eric42 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is how the default logo would on the Monobook skin with just a transparent background:
I don't think they look as good, but I could play around with the effects on the words so they look more defined. I'll mess with that tomorrow or over the weekend before I upload them to the wiki itself. Ixidorsbane 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Book Chapter ProjectEdit

Something that I have just realized that we are seriously behind on is the Chapters for the books. My original intention for them were just to have a page with a chapter summary, a quote or two, and anything important to note (in addition to a list of characters that starred in the chapter, characters that were at least mentioned, and other misc information based on what the chapter has). As of now, there's only eight chapters done... and they are all for Wizard's First Rule. Anyone want to help get them done? Just choose a book and start at least working out who appeared in the chapter. Eric42 08:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


According to the stats page, we are sitting at 68% of the articles are categorized. Let's attempt to remedy that! Let's do our best to get each article into at least one category. If you can't think of a category for it, flag it at least with a Misc category or a unknown category. Maybe we could even come up with a template that gives a Needs a Category category... Eric42 06:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The lack of categories has been very annoying. I have tried to put a category in each page that i create.--Markrox91 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. Just if you see an article without a category, tag it! Eric42 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Introductions Edit

Eric42 do you think we should go through the main character articles and cut down the introductions to a more reasonable size? At the moment it looks awkward, having such a large chunk of writing sitting there. Maybe we can make them a little more detailed when we have character infoboxes, as that would make it look more even.

Such characters as Verna, Adie, Nathan, Warren, the main Sisters of the Dark (Armina, Cecilia, Ulicia and Tovi) and Jagang that have larger roles in the book and therefore a more detailed introdution are the ones i was indicating.--Markrox91 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Look what I did with Richard Rahl. I took out the intro and I intend to have it rewritten into the "role" section. Eric42 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)