User talk:Pruano

Good job with the categories
Thanks for the hard work adding categories to the articles on books. It is much appreciated. Welcome to the wiki! Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 23:13, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Inserting Years
Be sure to add the Category for years correctly by using the code view with Years| 35000 +/- the actual year as the case may be. Lethalox 23:52, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Look at -837 DR
Take a look at -837 DR. Edit the page. Then select code view in the categories section. You will see that it has "Years| 34163" in the category link. That is to make the category page for years work out correctly. So every year is 35000 + actual year. 35000 + -837 is 34163. Or 1359 DR is 36359, et cetera. Lethalox 00:23, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure it out too. There is a page somewhere that describes it. But I could not find it tonight. Lethalox 00:41, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

109 DR
You need to cite your additions.Lethalox 18:33, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Articles with no content
I have to say, I don't really see the point in adding all those articles on years unless you're actually going to add content to them. It's serving to bump up the article count on the wiki, but isn't doing anything for the quality of the wiki overall. The wiki has a huge number of low-quality articles, and unless this changes, it cannot be taken seriously as an authority on the Realms. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 21:59, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Year pages with only the template info are hardly devoid of info; they have the name of the year and era, which may not be so easy to find (as a matter of fact, the two most common links, and supposedly official) throughout the internet are broken (and havent found a new official one in the wizards site); it was by chance that i found this one which is the source i use (but no direct mention is done for it as far as i could find, more like a beta tool, like the encounter one).


 * Second, the Year pages have a very specific format, due to the template, and some of it (namely the sorting key for the Years category) isnt obvious.


 * Third, IMHO it WILL help improve the wiki, simply because then some of the work is already done; if a person has to go through the creation of a year page (with its specific format, and attached info) just to add an entry, they will most likely not bother; if the page is already created though, one only has to check other likely pages for that specific addition.


 * Fourth, the creation of the year pages (without current references) is very mechanical, and my current process makes this a quick process (the automation of such process, which i was in the process of implementing, makes such process even faster and less error prone than a manual entry).


 * But if you believe it does more harm than good, i will gladly stop; less work for me.


 * For the record, i hardly care about the wiki count; i care for the info i get from it, and as such, i agree that much work is required to bring the wiki to a more acceptable shape; thus i have fixed and added other info besides the "empty" year pages; i just dont think they are as useless as that, or i wouldnt bother.


 * As much as i would like a treaty on each and every one of the major (and minor) articles, they most likely wont happen, neither is that the nature of a wiki, which is more about collecting small contributions from the masses, which collectively will amount to such treaties IMHO  Pruano 23:21, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, those are good points you make. I hadn't thought of it like that. I think perhaps you're right. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 21:32, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Multiple products in boxed set
Hi, sorry to trouble you again! With regard to this edit, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 2nd edition (revised) was actually a boxed set with several books inside (see the article for the list of books). Was it page 22 of the "A Grand Tour of the Realms" book? The template is set up so you can do (although this is a really long citation template name! ;)  Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 10:19, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it also explains why the page wasnt showing. Fixed, thanks. Pruano 19:15, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Citing unsourced statements
On this edit of the 1070 DR article, you have given p.144 of the mass market paperback of The Thousand Orcs as the reference for Innovindil's birth year, but on the Innovindil article, the birth year has a fact template next to it indicating that there is no source for this information. Please be careful not to cite sources unless those sources contain the information being presented! I've changed the reference to a fact template. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 21:38, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Years Category
Hi there, I recently added the Year 1109 DR but in the Year category it has not placed it in sequential order with the others but instead at the end as a seperate field. Why would this be? I noted that one or two others have done the same. I thought you'd be the man to ask after your good work with creating the fiddly years.--Eli the Tanner 14:52, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Help:Writing_an_article_about_a_year has the explanation (not obvious, had the same problem). Pruano 14:46, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, it is all fixed now.--Eli the Tanner 14:52, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Noticed that some of those pages were created by me, thanks for the fix.
 * Im now using a semi-automated method to create the year pages that should avoid such mistakes. Pruano 15:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

1111 DR
I've reported the inability to create 1111 DR to the volunteer spam task force. Hopefully they will be able to fix it for us. Thanks for pointing this out. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 22:36, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Position of interlanguage links
In this edit you have moved the interlanguage link above the categories, but please note that as per Wikipedia:WP:FOOTERS, the order ought to be categories, stub templates, then interlanguage links right at the very bottom. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 22:38, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I sincerely dont remember doing such change nor i had any interest in (or see reason for) such :|
 * Could a automated formatting be the actual culprit? Pruano 22:48, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is most likely. I did find it strange that anyone would deliberately move those to the wrong place! Is this automation done with software at your end, or is it part of the wiki's in-page editing tools? Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 22:58, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its with the wiki, most certainly; where (and exactly when) though, have no idea. Pruano 23:03, October 29, 2010 (UTC)