Dungeon Crawler Carl Wiki is maintained as a spoiler-aware, independent fan reference. Editorial work should make the series easier to navigate without replacing the books, disguising speculation as fact, or allowing a repeated error to spread across interconnected pages. This policy describes how an article moves from research to publication, how software assistance is reviewed, and how readers can request a correction.
The archive is not affiliated with or endorsed by Matt Dinniman, publishers, audiobook producers, studios, platforms, licensees, or other rights holders. Independence means the site is responsible for its own wording, verification, organization, and mistakes.
Every page should accomplish a specific reader task. A chapter page explains sequence. A character page follows development. A mechanics page defines rules and edge cases. An index creates meaningful routes through related material. A policy page explains how the archive operates. Pages should not share generic filler simply because they use the same template.
Accuracy, spoiler control, original synthesis, and useful navigation have equal weight. A page that is correct but spoils a major reveal in its search description is not finished. A long page that repeats the same premise without adding evidence is not comprehensive.
Before drafting, define the canonical subject, intended reader, spoiler ceiling, and overlap with existing pages. A proposed "Carl equipment" page might be an inventory timeline, a combat-loadout analysis, a foot-gear subpage, or a full-series synthesis. Those are different assignments and should not be generated from the same paragraph set.
A draft begins with the relevant novel chapters and any existing structured records. The researcher records first appearance, later confirmations, contradictory evidence, edition differences, and unresolved questions. Adaptation or publication claims use dated official sources in a separate packet.
Search results, fan discussions, and automated summaries can help locate a scene but do not replace reading the source. Notes should preserve locators without storing long copied passages.
Writers use original prose and organize material around the subject's actual function. An item page should discuss acquisition, mechanics, use, limitation, and later status. A monster page should cover behavior, ecology, encounter context, and confirmed counters. A relationship page should follow changes in trust or power rather than list every shared scene.
The lead defines the subject with the earliest safe context. Later developments appear under book-labeled headings. Numbers are included when they materially explain a mechanic and can be verified. Lists support comparison; they do not replace analysis.
Length is a result of coverage, not a substitute for it. To expand a page, add missing evidence, chronology, limitations, comparisons, or reader guidance. Do not restate the title, paraphrase the same definition repeatedly, or add vague sections that could apply to any article.
The reviewer checks every concrete claim against the appropriate source hierarchy. They distinguish explicit text, demonstrated behavior, character belief, system description, and editorial inference. Later knowledge must not be projected into an earlier chapter's point of view without a spoiler label.
Special attention goes to item status, spell limits, monster weaknesses, body control, hidden identities, and faction motives. These areas frequently attract plausible but unsupported certainty.
Review begins outside the body text. Check title, URL, excerpt, infobox, image, caption, related links, and navigation cards. A safe lead can still be undermined by a late-series alias in the metadata.
Book-specific pages stop at the named volume unless a later section is clearly optional. Full-series pages say so before the first revealing claim. When possible, link forward from a safe page instead of embedding the revelation there.
Headings should answer distinct questions and appear in a logical order. Internal links should point to existing canonical slugs, use readable labels, and avoid circular clusters in which every hub links to every other hub. A related-page list is curated, not exhaustive.
Index pages must explain why links are grouped. A raw list belongs in generated navigation, not in a feature article. Timeline and mechanics links should coexist because they answer different needs.
Use clear, direct sentences and the established names from the books. Humor can be acknowledged without copying long notification text or imitating the AI's abusive voice. Avoid promotional language, moralizing labels presented as fact, and certainty words unsupported by evidence.
Use past tense for discrete story events and present tense for stable definitions. Current possession, alive/dead status, and organizational control need a book scope. Capitalization should follow verified source usage, with redirects for common variants.
Software may help search provided texts, compare versions, find duplicate paragraphs, count words, check links, organize notes, or produce an initial draft. It may not serve as the cited authority. A person remains responsible for verifying the result against the novels and public sources.
Assisted drafts receive extra checks for invented connective facts, merged characters, false quotations, repeated framework language, and confident claims created from incomplete search context. Passing a grammar check does not satisfy canon review.
Readers can submit a correction through the contact page. The most useful request includes the exact page URL, disputed sentence or field, proposed change, source or public link, and a short locator such as book and chapter. Personal information beyond a reply address is unnecessary.
The site acknowledges evidence rather than debating status. A polite correction and an angry correction receive the same source review.
1. Record the request and preserve the current wording. 2. Reproduce the issue in the cited source or identify the applicable edition. 3. Check whether the same claim appears on other pages, snippets, infoboxes, or structured records. 4. Classify the outcome as factual correction, clarification, edition note, spoiler repair, style change, or no change. 5. Publish the narrowest accurate revision and update linked records when needed. 6. Add a dated note for material corrections that changed the page's meaning.
No rights holder, fan group, or sponsor receives authority to rewrite the novel record. Official sources establish facts within their domain, but the archive retains responsibility for neutral summary and correction.
Full-series hubs may change when new novels release. Updates should add a book-labeled section, review the lead for accidental spoilers, and preserve distinctions that mattered to readers of earlier volumes. Real-world news pages include an "as of" date because development status can expire.
Large rewrites should retain a brief change summary. Structured identifiers and stable URLs should remain consistent when the subject is unchanged.
Last substantive review: 2026-10-20. Related pages include Sourcing and Canon Policy, Editorial Program, Copyright, Contact, and Reader Path Full-Series Story Guide.
The archive earns trust by making uncertainty visible. Quietly converting an inference into a fact may make a page read smoothly, but it makes later correction harder and teaches readers to distrust every confident sentence. Clear qualifiers, dated updates, and specific source scopes are editorial strengths, not admissions of failure.