Talk:Celts Campaign Sourcebook

Unneeded Article
Why was this article created? It is not FR, and nothing on this wiki links to it. ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:46, January 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw all of the other 2nd ed sourcebooks like Monster Mythology, The Complete Book of Elves, etc and figured these were allowed here. Artemaz (talk) 00:17, January 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, this sourcebook has some interesting 2nd edition kits... But it is a campaign sourcebook... Historical... I have added an unrelated tag... - Darkwynters (talk) 02:01, January 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with it being on this wiki, but it might be a wasted effort because it's doubtful it will ever be linked or used as a reference. However, the Moonshae Isles are very Celt-like and you might be able to find a connection between an FR publication and this one. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:35, January 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * I wondered about this myself. We remit is setting-specific lore and general core lore relevant to the settings. If it doesn't have anything relevant to the setting (either to core D&D or lore specific to FR or a related setting), I don't think it belongs here. After all, we don't include Dragon/Dungeon articles with no bearing on the setting or core D&D, and we don't do Dragonlance, Eberron, or Greyhawk sources (Ravenloft and Planescape are a grey-area, and crossovers are fine). I don't think the FRW should be the de facto core D&D wiki, even if many see it as such.


 * Core subjects about monsters like Fomorians might feasibly be valid, but it still probably isn't necessary. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:51, January 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * The book has the 2nd edition stats for the boobrie and the fachan, which I have found in Realms products, so it could be useful on that grounds. It has also very scanty info on Silvanus, but enough to say that he belongs to the Celtic pantheon, should we want to include that in his article. Daranios (talk) 16:43, January 6, 2016 (UTC)