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)