Talk:Auppenser

Refs
The LEoF only has a small paragraph on Auppenser so I changes the refs to reflect this. Not sure where the rest of the realmslore came from, but I think I remember a piece of fanfic from Candlekeep that somebody might have to track down. -- User:Ijkay


 * Close. At Candlekeep, Ed Bonny, one of the authors of Lost Empires of Faerûn (sourcebook), wrote an unofficial web enhancement for LEoF, with a big chunk of extra info about Jhaamdath and Auppenser, found here, and a deity write-up in here. The entire article is pilfered from both sources: the deity write-up and the Monastic Servant of Auppenser prestige class. It's plagiarism, but the material is freely available to the public anyway, so maybe we can forgo deletion this time.
 * It's not official, but I'm not sure of the policy on author's homebrew material. I think a rewrite based only on the LEoF depiction of Auppenser would be the best approach here. An appendix can give links to Ed Bonny's entirely valid if unofficial expansion.


 * PS: Remember to sign your posts on talk pages. -- BadCatMan (talk) 00:41, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the sig. I keep forgetting. My opinion would be the unofficial realmslore by Ed Bonny adds value to this entry in the wiki as the info from LEoF is very sparse. Official info about Appenser is very sparse anywhere. However if I do tackle this page I would like to ask for a little clarity or direction. I would take this as canon in my own personal Realms but going from the wiki policies I would think that this source would be classed as non-canon. The author is the author of a published work, but the material is not an official enhancement and goes beyond providing clarity of a fact in a published work. The source material also as noted has been offered up to the public on the internet. So my questions are this: Can the non-canon info stay as I do believe it adds value? The plagerism policy still applies to non-canon freely offered material, correct? So if it stays it will have be rewritten. Yes? There are two non-canon templates - an article one and a section one. Once you start mixing canon and non-canon info in an article adding these section big boxes make it look rather clunky. Especially if you have canon and non-canon in the same section. Is it possible to reference an article with two sets of references - say canon and non-canon? What I would suggest is putting a box at the top that says portions of the article are non-canon and refers the reader to see the references which have two parts - canon and non-canon.  If I am way off base just let me know. I have no clue about adding/changing templates so would need some help if my suggestion has any merit.--Ijkay (talk) 16:02, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as per policy, only canon or possible-canon (such as information gathered from the Realms video games) can be included in articles. There's nothing wrong with creating an External Links section in the article, however! Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:43, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I didn't see anything about it in the scope policy and I did read the canon policy but took it as a policy on determining what is or is not canon and what to do for the is not. Seems a shame. Carrying that further, would this then mean materials produced by Ed Greenwood but not published by WotC (such as the posts in the Candlekeep archives) would be considered non-canon? I will get back to editing this one soon to chop it down and add the link. Definitely will become a stub though! --Ijkay (talk) 18:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'm noting again that much of the lore here is non-canon, being from unofficial, unpublished material from Ed Bonny. As per our updated Forgotten Realms Wiki:Canon policy, it cannot be accepted here, but may discussed and linked to in an appendix. It will need a clean-up at some stage. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:01, October 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was previously unaware of the updated policy on non-canonical articles as I was expanding and properly citing text. I would have gone through and reworded the "plagiarizations" - though I question the veracity of that claim like the above poster as it was written by the original, creating author and published on an Open Source site - but am unsure of the use of that course of action now. Can you explain to me the process of discussing and linking to an appendix? Could I put the non-WotC published material there? Also, being that there are mere two, small paragraphs, I don't see the problem with placing them in quotations as the sole entry for Auppenser. Please correct me if this, too, is unacceptable. - Bearded_Devil (talk) 12:47 am, 26 Oct 2013 (EDT)


 * Reading the rules on what constitutes canon, I challenge the claim that much of this work is non-canonical. The linked-to source was written by Auppenser's sole designer, and co-author of Lost Empires of Faerûn, Ed Bonny; not only that, but he attested to writing the material in the process of LEoF, but which did not make the cut of the publishing of the book by WotC. - Bearded_Devil (talk) 01:59, 26 Oct 2013 (EDT)


 * In hammering out our canon policy, based on what official statements there are, we've drawn the line at official published sources (sourcebooks, novels, comics), licensed sources (video games, etc.), and Ed Greenwood's comments (whose word is canon by contract). The Ed Greenwood rule doesn't apply to other Realms designers and writers, so what they say outside of the books doesn't automatically qualify as canon.


 * There is a lot of material that designers write that, for one reason or another, gets cut, doesn't get published, or gets heavily altered. There is also a lot that they do in their own time as fans/players/DMs. Some of this material later gets shared online, some stays under NDA or in the drawer. Some of it gets heavily contradicted by later developments in the setting (such as Scott Bennie's extensive advancement of the Old Empires that now languish in a parallel universe). Although all this material may be quite good, popular, and valid, it was never officially published and difficult to distinguish from a professional designer's own fan lore. Therefore, we've drawn the line at not including this stuff. See the Forum Posts entry in the Canon Hierarchy at the above policy for where this comes in. (Personally, I've used this lore as a DM and like it.)
 * The rule on not copying material is a blanket rule. It's not just for avoiding copyright infringement, but also to encourage editors to make original content and not be lazy, to adapt material to a concise wiki-ready encyclopaedic format, and because it would be rude to copy things outright, even if freely available. Given past problems with the wiki, we've gone hard on copied material of all kinds.
 * An appendix can be made by simply making an Appendix section at the bottom of the page and adding some discussion. For example:

==Appendix==
 * Although little had been said about Auppenser in published lore, designer Ed Bonnie, an author of Lost Empires of Faerûn where Auppenser was first introduced, posted more complete details for the god at the Candlekeep forums, found here.
 * And so on. I've done something similar with Ouranalathra.
 * I'm not sure what "mere two, small paragraphs" you are referring to. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:23, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarifications. I'm on the re-edits (both here and at Monastic Servants). The "mere, two paragraphs" I was talking about are the only two paragraphs officially published about Auppenser in Lost Empires of Faerûn. Within those two paragraphs there are only 5 sentences in total, which should fall within Fair Use rules as long as I directly quote and cite them. My point is that any original and significant rewording of the text would be next to impossible since there is already so little to work with. And, I don't know how the rule on copying material is a blanket rule, though, since it seems you allow direct quotation of a deity's dogma from source books. But I'll do my best to originally re-word 5 sentences. - Bearded_Devil (talk) 15:16, 26 Oct 2013 (EDT)
 * EDIT -- original rewording, considering the small amount of reference I had to deal with, was easier than I thought. The page should now be compliant on all levels. - Bearded_Devil (talk) 15:49, 26 Oct 2013 (EDT)