Talk:Aquatic elf

Must there really be citations? Because it seems to me, that the one who has made the entry used the complete article about Aquatic Elves of the book Races of Faerûn. All the informations here, are there on one or two pages. 79.215.117.62 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which page or pages? The article does not specify, leaving the reader to locate this information, which is why page numbers are always recommended for citations. In the future, the article will no doubt incorporate information on aquatic elves from other sources. How will statements from the other sources be distinguished from those already in the article, unless in-text citations are introduced? Fw190a8 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity
Question: Are Aquatic Elves capable of being above water without suffering from side-effects like dehydration, even if traversing is only temporary?--Kaidus (talk) 16:08, May 31, 2017 (UTC)
 * They're capable of surviving for a few hours, probably an average of ten, outside of a seawater environment without debilitating effects. Otherwise, they'd need magical aid. -hashtalk 18:38, May 31, 2017 (UTC)


 * THX--Kaidus (talk) 02:07, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Average Height
Regarding "Average Height

Male: 5' – 7'4" (150–220 cm)

Female: 4'7" – 6'11" (140–210 cm)[4]."

Which sources Races of Faerun. RoF p28 states "aquatic elves are tall, standing 6 feet or more in height." but then a later paragraph gives random height generation of 4'10" + 2d10 which would range from 5' to 6'6" with an average of 5'9" (and females are 5" shorter). Is there another source that gives the 7'4" figure? It seems more in line with RoF's text but not its height gen. I couldn't find any errata for RoF that clarifies one way or another. Cheers. --2001:8003:405C:8E00:351B:1C36:776C:F46A 03:10, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither could I. Height and weight ranges vary every time they're printed, which produces a good few discrepancies. I suspect the average height of a male sea elf is a little higher than the central value, or else "6 feet" is more of an approximation. I don't know why the ranges on the article are so weird, but I'll correct those. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:03, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * The error is exactly 10 inches, so perhaps they used 3d10 instead of 2d10. I was about to correct it too, but be my guest :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 04:05, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * And I did, belatedly. :) Feel free to check my values. (Looking at the revision history, it was all Lhynard's fault. :p) — BadCatMan (talk) 05:36, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry, guys. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:15, December 5, 2017 (UTC)