Talk:Elminster's Guide to Magic

Is this a legitimate book or is it a fan-work or 3rd-party piece? I can't find it on the WotC site, it's PDF-only, the cover is awful, lacks official branding, and doesn't follow the layout of Volo's Guide to Monsters or Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and its publisher is Dungeon Master's Guild, not Wizards of the Coast. I think it might not be canon. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:00, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess that remains to be seen. I'm mainly interested in the "history of the magical factions of the Forgotten Realms" section which, on first glance, looks like it reiterates canon material, but I haven't read it yet. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:16, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * DMs Guild stuff is "officially recognized and sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast", but you are correct, that doesn't make it canon. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:25, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it copying the wiki? :) — BadCatMan (talk) 02:23, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * LOL, I think FANDOM would have something to say about that. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:25, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * Since automatic publishers and rip-off wikis still exist, I'd say not. :) The Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License is basically a free-for-all. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:08, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * The operative word here is "free", right? If someone sells FANDOM content, isn't that grounds for a lawsuit? They may not choose to pursue it, but I don't really know how these things work. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 11:49, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * No idea, the licensing stuff melts my brain, but I imagine "freely" means "no inhibition on using" rather than "for no cost". In any case, what I did learn was that anyone copying wiki text is required to give attribution with a link back to the wiki or equivalent. I doubt we can force anyone, but it is a good basis for nagging. :) (Note to all: this is just a side-discussion, not suggesting this book copied from the wiki.) — BadCatMan (talk) 15:31, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * While no doubt a useful resource, this is no more canon than other DM's guild titles such as A Boy and his Modron, or King of the Cats --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 04:20, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best to treat DM's Guild works as third-party publications: not canon, not branded, not licensed. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:08, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * I raised the topic of 'DMsGuild as canon' almost a year ago in a forum post and got no feedback. The post is here. I agree with BadCat on this one, these publications have a very fan-made feel to them. If we are agreed to not treat these publications as canon, can we update the Forgotten Realms Wiki:Canon policy to reflect this. - Thomaslove92 (talk)  11:53, September 20, 2017 (GMT)


 * Hmm, I must have missed that or else had no idea what DM's Guild was at the time. Yeah, I think we'll need to reconsider the canon policy soon. I'll get the ball rolling some time when the spirit moves me. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:03, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have reverted my change to the Template:5th edition sourcebooks. My mistake&mdash;I was overly enthusiastic and didn't think it through. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 11:49, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * So we're good to delete the article then? We can move this Talk page elsewhere. — BadCatMan (talk) 15:31, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's delete it. It's entirely fanmade. --Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:04, March 16, 2018 (UTC)