User talk:Daranios

Greetings Daranios :) A warm welcome to the Forgotten Realms Wiki! Zerak talk 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Toolbar
Regarding this question: By using the "wikipedia" monobook skin the toolbox and navigation box will be on the left side, instead of the right, to change skin go to Special:Preferences, go to the "skin" tab and chose the Wikipedia skin MonoBook. Hope that helps, if not, let me know! :) Zerak talk 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Great template
Good work on the Zakharan pantheon template! Fw190a8 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) Thanks! Mainly a matter of copy and paste. Daranios 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers
I couldn't help but notice that on the Zann article, you have included an 'f' after the page number on the citation from The Complete Sha'ir's Handbook. What does this 'f' represent? Fw190a8 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should mean "and the following page". I have seen that in quoting systems before, but I have not looked up if this is usual with established quotation rules in this wiki or wikipedia. One could of course also write p. 41-42 or p. 41, 42. What do you think is best? Daranios 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the f is rather unusual - it's certainly new to me. Personally I would use p. 41-2 or p. 41-42 for a range of pages, and p. 41, 56 for two different non-consecutive pages. I think it's more intuitive than the f symbol. In actual fact, if more than one page is referenced, p. should change to pp. but our template system is incapable of doing this automatically, but never mind! Fw190a8 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I tumbled over what I only believed to know. I think the f is actually a German citation convention. Thanks for telling. Daranios 10:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's good to know, in case I run into it again. Any time you want to create a german version of this wiki, feel free. There are only 3668 articles to translate! ;) Fw190a8 06:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Return to active editing
Hi! Good to see you're active again! Fw190a8 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-)! My presence here will stay erratic, I guess. As (almost) always: So much to do, so little time. Daranios 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding blanket categories
Please try to avoid so-called "blanket" categories like Category:Kara-Tur and instead use specific categories such as Category:Locations in Kara-Tur or Category:Inhabitants of Kara-Tur. People who come to the wiki seeking information will use specific categories to look for information regarding locations or inhabitants, then refine their search by continent, region and then perhaps city. People who come to look for generic information on Kara-Tur will start with the Kara-Tur article, which will provide links to all Kara-Tur-related information. Putting everything related to Kara-Tur in one "super-category" creates a large unstructured category making it harder to find articles. Fw190a8 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I started out with Al-Qadim with the idea of organizing articles according to campaign (sub-)settings, centering around Category:Campaign settings. This would be a real-world oriented structure parallel to the in-universe structure with categories like Category:Inhabitants of Kara-Tur. That might be helpful for anyone asking: Hey, what information is out there regarding the Al-Qadim campaign setting? For Kara-Tur the situation is somewhat mudded as the campaign setting and the continent share the same name.
 * Please tell me if such a structure, which would not disrupt the in-universe structure, as e. g. Category:Locations in Zakhara is included in Category:Al-Qadim as well as in Category:Locations by continent, is generally unwanted. Or should there be a discussion about it?
 * If it is not dismissed outright: Would it be better to rename Category:Kara-Tur in Category:Kara-Tur campaign setting? Would Maztica and the Hordelands qualify as such sub-settings or not? What should they be called? Daranios 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that some more discussion on this would be great. I have begun something at Forum:Consensus on "blanket" or "catch-all" categories so that everyone can provide their input if they so choose. Fw190a8 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific citation
Regarding your comment on this edit, yes, it should be specific enough so that each statement on the page is attributed to at least one source. See Castle Obarskyr for an example! I noticed you placed the citation in the section header - it is more conventional to place it at the end of the sentence or paragraph. In this case, I would place it after the colon but before the list begins. Placing it at the end of the last item in the list would imply that it only applies to that last item. Fw190a8 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks. I had been dimly aware that it's not usual to place references in headers, but I saw the same problem you mentioned if I placed it at the very end. And one reference for each line in the list, meaning also one for each consecutive page in the source, seemed to be overdone to me. Daranios 09:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Category questions
Hi, I've responded to your comments on my talk page! Fw190a8 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Dead deities
You know I didn't know that there were two seperate portals, it's been a while since I've been around here. Thanks for showing me that, I'll revert the edit. Johnnyriot999 09:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Call to edit
I wanted to issue a "call to edit" for all our regular editors who haven't been active recently, so I'm writing on their talk pages! The activity on the wiki has dropped recently but there's still a lot of work to be done to move it forwards, so if you can spare some time to return to editing, it would be much appreciated! Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 22:06, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. At the moment I am very busy at Wikipedia and especially trying to improve Dungeon & Dragons Wiki (and then there is real life...). I hope to be back here when I am finished with my main issues at those places. Keep up your good work here! Daranios 14:52, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Merge where?
Daranios, I appreciate your Al-Qadim articles... it was a great campaign... I have left talk pages on the creature lists... some of the info on these pages is the same as the main Monstrous Compendium Al-Qadim Appendix or Monstrous Compendium Kara-Tur Appendix, so the info from the lists needs to be moved to those pages... it also seems like some of the info was copied directly from ... I would recommend asking Cronje, he is one of our newest admins and is very insightful and knowledgeable. Please, no hard feelings, we all care about the Realms on this wiki, but we also want things to be organized and not plagiarized :) Darkwynters 17:37, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Daranios, cool... we'll see what others say and keep up the great work on preserving the history of Al-Qadim :) Darkwynters 19:07, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Dyes?
Daranios, perhaps you can help me here... you have Category:Dyes cat... and Category:Items from Zakhara, but Uther is redirected to a city??? I am guessing Uther (dye) is actually a dye and Uther (city) is another name for Qadib, right? Darkwynters (talk) 16:31, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Uther is the name of a yellow-orange dye produced and heavily used in Qadib. I guess, there is nothing more to say about it, so I just included that as the last sentence of the Qadib article and made Uther into a redirect there. But it still is a dye, so I put that category to the redirect, just in case anyone was browsing categories in search of such a specific item. Daranios (talk) 18:04, October 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the Three Sentence Rule may be violated in cases where a thing may potentially turn up somewhere outside it's parent article, as stated with the Star Ruby example at Forgotten Realms Wiki:3 Sentence Rule. People may travel, goods can be traded, while buildings and districts are strongly tied to a city and do not (easily) relocate. The uther dye may well be traded to another city or all the way to Faerûn, so it's not specifically tied to Qadib, even if it's produced there. So it should be okay to make a full page for uther, even at three sentences or under. (For example, I did something similar with Fiddlehead soup.) -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:01, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case it reads nicely the way you did it, no more confusion about categories etc. And acutally I am counting five sentences now ;-). Daranios (talk) 13:12, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I made Five sentenses... hehe, glad you like it... People always say I talk too much, which is how I can turn a sentense into FIVE :) Darkwynters (talk) 17:40, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Copyright material
Hey, Daranios... I saw you cleaned up the Kadarasto page... great work... I reloaded the page with a clean history as per our policy... if there are any other pages with copyright history, please let me know and I will clean them for you :) Darkwynters (talk) 18:49, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the majority of the Zakharan city articles seem to have been mainly copied from source material. Apart from Kadarasto I have now changed to the best of my ability Dihliz, Hawa, Qudra, all Cities of the Heart and all Free Cities of Zakhara. On the other hand, Medina al-Afyal and Rog'osto seem ok to me. The others I did not check yet. Daranios (talk) 10:40, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work! I'll begin deleting and restoring them. --BadCatMan (talk) 11:36, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you confirm that Huzuz and Wasat are now entirely original? Not all the sentences were changed, so I wondered if you'd missed a bit. Thanks! -- BadCatMan (talk) 11:42, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * You were right, there were some more phrases in Huzuz I missed, which I changed now. I hope I have found everything. Wasat seems ok to me. Daranios (talk) 16:11, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Huzuz and Wasat are now clean... great work, Daranios!!! Darkwynters (talk) 16:42, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

And that's all the articles in that list deleted and restored fresh. Thanks! — BadCatMan (talk) 13:13, October 14, 2012 (UT


 * Great :-). Daranios (talk) 15:37, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Wei Gehts?
Just a friendly hello and how are you. I just finished rewriting the Plane of Shadow page and I noticed there was a link to a German version. Do you (or someone) translate pages from other wikis into German (and vice versa?), or is it more of a link between similar wikis? Just curious. Hope to see you around :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:55, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Danke, gut! :-) I have done little at the German site, and not recently. I think it is more a link between similar wikis than a translation. Faerûnpedia is certainly active, they have created many new articles since I made a round to connect all fitting articles here and there, but I am not sure how they go about it there. Daranios (talk) 16:54, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Edits
Daranios, I might have told you this before, but... Awesomely fantastic work on your Al-Qadim pages!!! Darkwynters (talk) 22:02, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just been looking through your work too Daranios and it is brilliant to have someone like you here, especially with regards to your specialism in Al-Qadim. Any way we can make him a featured user Darkwynters? Or maybe revive the old awards system.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 23:05, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I wanted to do these lesser Zakharan deities for some time, and now at last could find the time and energy. To hear that you find the articles worthwhile is just as good as any awards :-)! Daranios (talk) 19:51, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's nice to read about these exotic, far-off locales and strange gods. Thanks for working on this forgotten corner of the setting. :) However, can you please try for a more standard wiki arrangement, by starting with the name, then saying what it is, before launching the rest of the lore? This helps with consistency across the wiki and makes it easier for later expansion. Thanks! — BadCatMan (talk) 13:13, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahm, I did that for The Faceless God, right? I couldn't find a good beginning for that article there. I will try to remember that for the future. Speaking of standard arrangement, what do you think of the beginning of the Ragarra article, then? Is this still fine, or should all articles exactly start with "Xyz was..."? Daranios (talk) 19:51, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. Yeah, the Faceless God. Your original was actually very cool and evocative, however I had to go for the standard encyclopaedic format, to identify the subject first and then explain. It's bland but efficient. If you're at a loss to start, then the standard way to begin most wiki articles is "[Name of the article] was a..." and the rest follows on. Ragarra was fine, though since I made some edits, I chose to adjust the beginning the same way. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:23, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

By source
Happy new year! You have deleted the "inhabitants by source" categories. Would you tell me why you think they are not useful? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 12:16, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Daranios, Happy New Years to my favorite Al-Qadim fan :)


 * The pages in those categories were Creatures, not Inhabitants... but you do make a good point, do we want to have categories on "Inhabitants of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition" or "Creatures from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting"? This might be a lot of work... I wonder what High admin BadCat and admin Movie think? - Darkwynters (talk) 18:12, January 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... First, do we agree that Inhabitants are named and/or unique entities and Creatures are not? That's what I'm going with for this discussion. If an article is about an inhabitant, then it should be fairly obvious from the references which source the info comes from, and it might be more than one. If we categorize inhabitants, somebody like Elminster would be a member of 50 different "inhabitants by source" categories...is that useful to anyone? If we categorize Creatures by source, then what we have is a duplicate of the Table of Contents of the monster manuals, plus whatever the novels and other sourcebooks have added. I think the "Appearances" section of an article could mention that Cleric X or Monster Y appeared in a particular novel, etc.


 * I can see one use for "inhabitants by source": A list of all characters that are mentioned in a novel or sourcebook. Say you wanted to know if a book had Regis in it. You could look at the Category:Inhabitants by Book Title and see if the Regis page is linked. However, I think it would be more useful if the book's wiki page listed all the character's names (and perhaps the page number they appear on, for obscure characters). Either way, it's a lot of work. All in all, I don't see the Category system being very useful for this sort of information&mdash;it should go in wiki articles instead. I'm open to hearing counterarguments about this, so convince me :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * Good points. Creatures & people like Orcs or Elminster would probably get a mention in dozens...possibly hundreds of sources so I think the Category system would not be best either. The Appearances section (and references themselves) could be more rigourously included in articles perhaps? As for the sources themselves, then some of them have a format of listing any creatures/characters in them, which we could follow? e.g. Dungeon magazine 88 and Dungeon magazine 75 try to do this.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 00:23, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the use of such categories, I had in mind just what Moviesign has stated. I think that would apply to both characters and creatures. For creatures specifically, the advantages compared to a table of content in a monster manual (do we have those for all monster books?) would be that 1) you will often start out search from a creature and then jump into the category, while you will use the table of content only when you start out search from a monster book page, and 2) the category will show you what articles are indeed present. Those points could however also be partly fulfilled by good referencing as was just suggested Eli the Tanner, and I also see the problem with lots of categories for articles the likes of Elminster. The work would be small for the deleted categories the discussion started with, creatures contained in Monstrous Compendium - Al-Qadim Appendix and Kara-Tur Appendix, but rather large if expanded to all characters and creatures. Thus I would be happy with a decision either way. Daranios (talk) 13:42, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at what Eli did on City of the Spider Queen. I think this is more useful and less work than categories in this case. Also, if you start on a Creature page, you can use the "What links here" button to find other articles that mention that creature. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:01, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree... using the "Appearances" section is a great way to state where "Creatures" or "Individuals" are located based on source material :) - Darkwynters (talk) 22:49, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * In this case for many books containing creatures (but where the article has no list yet), lists could be copied from the various Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, that are organized by edition and then by book. Daranios (talk) 18:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

As invited, my 2 cp. I agree, I don't see a need for categories by source, as lists of inhabitants/creatures can be handled at the source's article itself. Plus, it would lead to yet another proliferation of categories. Categories should be a way of collecting information from many sources across the entire franchise (say a type of character from sourcebooks, novels, comics, video games), not from a single source. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:20, January 5, 2014 (UTC)