Talk:Icons of the Realms

Explicit non-Realms content
I'm not so sure if we should include settings that have no relations to the Forgotten Realms or even core Dungeons & Dragons. I can understand sets with even minor relations, but how about the set of Mythic Oddysseys of Theros miniatures? We don't have the sourcebook detailed on the wiki, so I can't imagine the use of listing its miniatures. I see that these sets are coloured grey, but there doesn't seem to be a note to normal wiki users about what this means. Any thoughts about this? ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 22:51, August 17, 2020 (UTC)


 * I favor including them mainly for two reasons: first, given the interconnected nature of 5e, some of the creatures or characters might end up appearing in a Realms context at some point; second (and possibly more relevant), all these sets have generic non-setting-specific monsters that end up making them at least partially interesting to catalog, so we might as well have the whole thing.


 * To identify the sets that are primarily from a non-Realms setting, the color scheme follows the one from the tables of the AD&D Trading Cards page, but I neglected to explain that on the page. I will add a key, similarly to the one that page has.


 * Thoughts? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 03:30, August 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sir Whiteout. In addition to the points he raised, I think the notion of "completing the set" applies in this context. That's the rationale we used for covering all the factions of Sigil, even the ones with no apparent Realms connection. I would also like to raise the case of the AD&D Trading Cards, where we cover all of the cards regardless of setting. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 07:39, August 18, 2020 (UTC)