Talk:Al-Qadim

Timeline
I was just looking through my old Arabian Adventures book... man, I had some good times playing my dwarven merchant-rogue... Does anyone know the Dale Reckoning timescale for Al-Qadim? Since most of Al-Qadim is 2nd edition... it probably is 1367 DR, just like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 2nd edition (revised). Ideas? Darkwynters (talk) 22:58, October 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, what a bastard of a question to answer! This has been touched upon over at Candlekeep but the answer is that there is no canon source for timeline integration. So that sucks. I say we need to put this on the wiki's timeline, so I have an idea.


 * We can make a conclusion here on the wiki that it is 1367 DR as you say, since that's a logical conclusion to draw. Then, we can make a template that adds a footnote that explains that the timeline is non-canon and it's a decision we've made on the wiki. Then, each time an Al-Qadim article mentions a date, we just insert that template next to the date, and the footnote is automatically added. Does that sound reasonable? Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 00:19, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, FW :) Darkwynters (talk) 21:52, October 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried to create such a template - so far without documentation. Please see it in action at Marrake al-Sidan al-Hariq ben Lazan. You need to manually insert at the bottom of the articles so far. Please change and improve if you have any other ideas. Daranios (talk) 15:17, March 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the &lt;small&gt; tags are really necessary. If there are other notes on the page, they will be in normal sized font, making the AQ-time note look out of place. Other than that, it looks good :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 17:26, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Dragon #351
To answer your question, according to rpg.net, Dragon #351 is 3.5 edition. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:47, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In addition to the edition I was also wondering: The two Dragon articles already under the 3.5E heading are clearly crunch, while this article title sounds a bit different. Is it more fluff or crunch? And if it is more fluff, should it matter? Daranios (talk) 15:58, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have issue #351, but from the very brief description at rpg.net, it is more fluff. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 16:31, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I personally would leave it where it is in the article until further notice. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 16:39, June 12, 2016 (UTC)