User talk:Fw190a8

Archive of older comments

 * Archive created on 2007-03-19
 * Archive created on 2007-04-12
 * Archive created on 2008-01-05
 * Archive created on 2008-07-14
 * Archive created on 2009-09-21

DnD footer
I have updated the gaming footer to DnD centric links, you can add it by adding this code  to the bottom of the main page.

If there are any wikis I missed, they can be added here: w:Template:dndfooter --Sxerks 00:20, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

For Icingdeath, it's on page 46 of Silent Blade, but I dont' know how to cite sources.

Silent Balde edition
The Legend of Drizzt Book XI, ISBN: 978-0-7869-5054-6

Avariel Page
Thanks for the clean-up on my edits. I'll try to stick to that format if I add anymore, but I cant promise I'll get it right. I was actually just trying to reword the info to be a little more true to the descriptions in the manuals. There are other aspects such as where they are found and relationships to other creatures that could be explored, but didnt know if you had a set format and didnt want to create other headers that might break with any said format.

Deleting Clan Macrae image on userpage.
Hey there, You deleted an image from my user page that you shouldn't have. The picture is of and about my family and as such I am free to use it however I please, so please don't do it again. --Macrae 22:26, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

In response to your query
I've been a bit busy of late, but I'm still paying attention to the wiki. School's become a priority as of late, however. You know how life is. ;) Niirfa-sa 05:19, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Re: I see you
Hehe, hey Focke, how've ya been? :) Zeraktalk 22:22, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I need your help

I started a Forgotten Realms Wiki and I need people to come and help make it presentable and make articles and everything...

Maybe if you can help, just askin'...

PsykoReaper 00:48, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would you need to create a Forgotten Realms Wiki when a perfectly good one already exists? Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 18:16, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

RE: References Great Dale
Is that what you’ve meant? Advise me accordingly.Thank you.--Looptop 21:24, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Yo!
It's good to be back, man. VERY good to be back. hashtalk 21:41, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pages reborn
Wouldn't it be interesting to add a page listing all the deleted (well not the spam) pages to the Adding Content section of the Main Page, just like the ones that exist for "stubs" and "wanted pages" so that they could be improved and then posted?
 * You can see the list of deleted pages in the log here http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1 but it seems cumbersome to want to recreate articles from that list, since a lot of it is 1 random spam, 2 copyright violations 3 deleted for policy violations 4 deleted because a page was moved, mis-named etc. etc. Also, please sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes (~) Zeraktalk 15:09, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I thought the idea was interesting as users could recorrect plagiated pages without having to rewrite the whole page. I reckon it is a difficult balance to have both a detailed and unplagiated page, as every bit of information will inevitably have been drawn from a copyright-protected document (eg. Hasbro/WotC) Duneth 15:49, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically the reasoning behind deleting plagiarised pages is that otherwise, someone could use the 'history' tab to view plagiarised material, so in the interests of respecting copyrights, we will delete plagiarism and force the article to be created in a way that respects copyrights. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 14:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Overly non-canonical stuff
I am not sure if this is actually against the rules, but should lore created by random people be allowed here? I mean, seeing all these damn NWN and BG pages is annoying (Don't get me wrong, the games themselves are great, I play them, but annoying inconsistencies arise from their stories. I mean, how the hell did a Drow matron manage to bind an arch-devil???), but at least they have proper writers. This query is, more specifically, referring to the majority of the links on Starsword's User Page... Wereguy2 07:04, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Need Help
An interesting choice of callsign. If I follow your example you could call me UH60L but that's not why I stopped by. I'm brand new to wikis and have never contributed to any before but I find myself with some spare time between flights these days and thought this would be a good thing to use to fill that block. I've expreimented with editing several posts but find that I need to start referencing my edits. I have read the help section on citations and have used the longhand formula to reference a couple of books. However, nowhere could I find instructions on how to permanently save those citation templates for use by other editors and the only thing mentioned was 'ask to have one created for you.' Any help you could give would be great. Thanks!--Crazyhorse75 15:04, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Pages needing deletion
You might want to check out Category:Articles nominated for deletion. ➳ Quin 01:59, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Citation Issue - Semberflow
I am wonder how you do a citation off of a map? The info for the Semberflow starting at Lake Sember and going to the Ashaba comes just from looking at the map. Lethalox 13:01, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance adventure book
I wouldn't be the one to ask if it was canon; WotC would. However, it's been treated as if it was canon in all subsequent sources. The relevant text has actually been entirely reprinted in Dungeon #170, so I should probably change the citation to that. -- Rowan Earthwood 16:35, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Spell templates on non-spell articles: I agree
I agree with your assessment. We could also do with a similar template for magic items (I used the spell template for "Ring of enduring arcana" and "Belt of priestly might"). Maybe a catch-all template for such enchantments and items is in order. Perhaps something like the creature template, wherein the article type (Weapon Quality, Ring, Boots, and so on) appears at the top. (In the creature template, the creature's type appears in small print at the top.) StarSword 20:21, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've almost got a template completed at Template:Magic item, but it's having a little trouble. What's with this text:  {{ #if:1st|  StarSword 03:58, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Q’arlynd Melarn
Although not cited, this edit is correct. Can’t you simply put the   tag at the end of that paragraph instead of removing it? ➳ Quin 22:46, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Images
Sorry about not responding didnt notice I had mail. I have started putting down the source website normally amazon or wizards.com for the images and also amended them to show as book covers. Do I need to do anything else

Quenthel Baenre
Sorry about that, didn't mean to alter the class. Bowser64 19:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thanks for the feedback Fw190a8. My contributions are small but I'm grateful for any advice and help you(or others) can give me on helping this wiki to grow. --Eli the Tanner 20:09, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia's new skin
With Wikia making big changes to their skin (making an Oasis-based skin default), I was wondering what, if any, steps you're taking to preserve the format of this beloved wiki. I (and apparently many, many others) dislike (hate) the way the new skin looks, what with it removing so much content space, and I'm really hoping there's a way for you to save the current skin. Please let us know! Cronje 13:32, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Sannse's blog, the new skin rolls out today, but that we can revert to Monaco until November 3rd. This would seem to imply that it will become mandatory beyond that point. Cronje 07:57, October 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from two things (detailed here), I wouldn't mind the skin at all.


 * I see a big problem: with the disappearance of the menu bar on the left, the Help page link on the homepage is missing for anyone not logged in, and even for those that are, its hidden in the user menu. At least the section "Helping Out" should have a link to it. Pruano 14:54, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Citing Dungeon Magazine
What is the best way to cite Dungeon Magazine articles? Lethalox 21:31, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think the cite for Dungeon Magazine needs to be change to reflect pre-Paizo publishing of the magazine. Lethalox 01:05, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

de:1362 TZ
What does the bracketed code "de:1362 TZ" do to a document?Lethalox 01:35, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Empty year pages
Year pages with only the template info are hardly devoid of info; they have the name of the year and era, which may not be so easy to find (as a matter of fact, the two most common links, and supposedly official) throughout the internet are broken (and havent found a new official one in the wizards site); it was by chance that i found this one which is the source i use (but no direct mention is done for it as far as i could find, more like a beta tool, like the encounter one).

Second, the Year pages have a very specific format, due to the template, and some of it (namely the sorting key for the Years category) isnt obvious.

Third, IMHO it WILL help improve the wiki, simply because then some of the work is already done; if a person has to go through the creation of a year page (with its specific format, and attached info) just to add an entry, they will most likely not bother; if the page is already created though, one only has to check other likely pages for that specific addition.

Fourth, the creation of the year pages (without current references) is very mechanical, and my current process makes this a quick process (the automation of such process, which i was in the process of implementing, makes such process even faster and less error prone than a manual entry).

But if you believe it does more harm than good, i will gladly stop; less work for me.

For the record, i hardly care about the wiki count; i care for the info i get from it, and as such, i agree that much work is required to bring the wiki to a more acceptable shape; thus i have fixed and added other info besides the "empty" year pages; i just dont think they are as useless as that, or i wouldnt bother.

As much as i would like a treaty on each and every one of the major (and minor) articles, they most likely wont happen, neither is that the nature of a wiki, which is more about collecting small contributions from the masses, which collectively will amount to such treaties IMHO  Pruano 23:21, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the calendar link, using the Google search parameter "link:" only gives this link, and a similar search on that one gives no results at all. Pruano 23:37, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Notes vs References
When should use Notes vs References? I saw that you edited -1715 DR and changed it.Lethalox 01:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes around references
Why is it important? I am happy to do it, but I would just like to understand the benefit it brings. Lethalox 01:47, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Desert of Desolation
Yeah, Tracy and Laura Hickman's original modules were generic, but the compiled version of the module was explicitly set in the Forgotten Realms, in the desert of Raurin. Bakar, the nation whose ruins the PCs explore in the module, is mentioned in The Horde boxed set as an Imaskari successor state in Raurin. Desert of Desolation mentions neighboring Faerunian nations and geography, has heavy involvement with Durpari merchants, and even uses Elminster as a hook to get the PCs involved.-- Rowan Earthwood 16:08, October 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Desert of Desolation is already listed in Portal:Sourcebooks, but as a 2nd edition module. This is inaccurate; it was published in 1987, firmly in the 1e era. -- Rowan Earthwood 16:19, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Featured articles
No prob. I just noticed the update and so made one of my own. Niirfa-sa 19:09, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes
I can see your point. Mostly, I've been trying to go with giving the articles some flavor (as Wookieepedia does with many of its articles) but I do see your point. While I think we're too few in number to really have flame wars on the subject, if you'd like them removed, I'll go ahead and see to it. Niirfa-sa 19:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I can kind of agree with what you're saying. I'll see about removing the quotes and not placing any more at the head of an article from now on. Niirfa-sa 19:31, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

References in Novels
Will do. I just could not remember where in the book and I am traveling this week so I don't have it with me. 24.114.255.99 19:47, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Dead languages and tense
If you'll note the way Wikipedia speaks of dead languages (for example, Latin, Old English, and Old Norse), you'll see it uses the present tense. This is because while a dead human no longer exists as a human, a "dead" language still exists as long as it's written down. Some aspects of these languages should use the past tense, of course ("was commonly spoken throughout Jhaamdath" rather than "is spoken," for example; but even then, you can say "Jhaamdathan is a language that was once commmonly spoken" - it's still a language, whether people remember it or not). If scholars are still writing, speaking (even if mispronounced), and translating it, or if it can still be found on the walls of ancient ruins, the present tense is generally appropriate. -- Rowan Earthwood 19:05, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Notes vs References
I noticed that you are changing articles (especially Years documents) from having a "Notes" section to "References". When should one be used over another? Lethalox 14:01, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Good to know. Lethalox 14:20, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Demons and Celestials
This may not be the correct place to ask but I figured it would be my best bet considering your knowledge.

I am looking for info/history on Demons and Celestials. Wars and conflicts (between each other specifically), as well as other specifics as to types. Could you recommend any texts or lead me in the right direction?

Thank you for any help, Soulscream


 * I think I am going to refer you to Niirfa-sa, as I'm sure he's far more knowledgeable on the subject! I will ask him to leave something on this page, since you haven't registered, so you don't have your own page on which to leave something. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 15:57, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that I'm considered an expert, though I don't really think of myself as one. I'm not actually as well-read as I'd like to be and about half the books on the list I haven't read or have only read parts of. However, I do have a memory for detail that means I often appear to know particularly obscure information. So I'll give a few pointers.


 * Celestials are beings made out of supernatural goodness. In Dungeons & Dragons (including FR), good and evil are more than just moral viewpoints - they're physical substances (which is why spells like detect evil work and why certain alignments are vulnerable to certain attacks). Certain planes and creatures are made out of this "physical" good and creatures so composed are called celestials. This can result in some oddities - for instance, not all celestials are good in their personal alignment: a celestial can be neutral or evil under the right circumstances, although they're inclined towards good. Also, not all immortals are celestials and not all celestials are immortals: for instance, angels are, as of 4e, from both the fiendish and celestial planes and noble eladrin as one example are fey celestials. Good-aligned gods are celestials as well.


 * Demons are a specific type of fiend, which is the opposite of a celestial, being composed of supernatural evil. There are many kinds of fiends but demons are a specific type that inhabits the Abyss and is usually chaotic evil (deamons, who are neutral evil are, as of 4e, demons). Demons are involved in a millennia-long conflict with devils - their opposite - known as the Blood War, which currently is at an unsteady ceasefire. According to 4e, demons derived from a corrupted primordial. Demons are composed of several different categories: loumara, obyriths, tanar'ri, and yugoloths (daemons), each of which has its own specific qualities.


 * Both
 * Forgotten Realms Campaign Settings/Guides (2e and up)
 * Manual of the Planes (3e and 4e)
 * Monster Manuals (2e and up)
 * Planar Handbook
 * Planescape Campaign Setting
 * Planescape Monstrous Compendiums
 * Planewalker's Handbook


 * Celestials
 * Book of Exalted Deeds
 * The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea (just a guess as I don't have it yet and 4e doesn't like using good-aligned monster templates, but my guess is that it at least covers the celestial gods and their servants in some small detail)


 * Demons
 * Book of Vile Darkness
 * Faces of Evil: The Fiends
 * Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
 * Fiend Folio
 * The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos


 * Personally, I'd recommend going with the most recent information (4e) which is both the most up to date and the most broad, and then working your way backwards, which is often more detailed but which is out of date in some cases (such as all angels being celestial). Niirfa-sa 17:45, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I now am registered so any other info anyone comes up with would be appreciated. (Now to see if I figured this out....) --Mealla 18:46, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * The 4e information on the subject is pretty scarce. Demonomicon is really the best 4e source on the sort of information you're looking for (with some interesting stuff on the origin of the Abyss, the Blood War, and the fall of Asmodeus). The all-time best source for fiendish wars is Hellbound: The Blood War, a second edition Planescape supplement (and I would also promote Faces of Evil). I would generally not recommend - or, at least, recommend them less - 4th edition sources because they won't tell you much on this subject and, really, what does "out of date" even mean? Roleplaying game supplements aren't like milk; they don't spoil. It's your game; draw inspiration from the sources you want (all editions have some merit). Or just make things up, which is perhaps the real joy of tabletop RPGs. Be aware, however, that 4th edition has largely established a new continuity that won't be very compatible with earlier editions (the Forgotten Realms setting retains at least some previous-edition continuity, though this can interact oddly when attempting to interpret 4e core material in light of it). If you're playing in 4e, though, of course you'll want 4e sources for their stats, at the very least. With all that said, the main conflict between fiends is/was the Blood War (which has officially ended, or at least paused, in the 4th edition era). The Blood War is said to be a remnant of the Dawn War, the epic conflict between gods and primordials that climaxed with the battle between the Wind Dukes of Aaqa and the Queen of Chaos, and ended definitively (at least on Toril with the Tearfall, when Ao divided the worlds of Toril and Abeir, giving Abeir to the primordials and Toril to the gods. There haven't really been any great named battles between fiends and celestials apart from the decimation of the obyriths by the eladrins and, oh right, Asmodeus's rebellion and the so-called Intervention of the Celestials. For the most part, conflicts between Good and Evil are relatively small, local affairs compared to the titanic battles between the opposing forces of Evil, which have historically taken up most of the fiends' time. Since the Intervention of the Celestials, in which an allied celestial army got its collective rears definitively kicked by the temporarily allied fiendish races, celestial beings typically let the fiends fight among themselves and target only their opposites (celestial archons versus devils, asuras versus demons, guardinal]s versus [[yugoloths), or defend mortals from fiendish invasions. For some serious 3e/2e/4e/Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk/Planescape fusion fiendish and celestial history geekery, see this thread.  -- Rowan Earthwood 20:52, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahaha. That's very, very detailed and you're obviously more familiar with this than me (like I said, I'm not as well-read as I'd like to be). To clarify my use of the term "out of date" what I mean is that some information, such as angels being celestials or demons not being elementals is out of date. So from a lore-based perspective, 4e will give you the most up to date information, even if it's also the sparsest. But I agree that earlier editions are far better for detailed lore, even if some of the details are, as I've said, obsolete or out of date. My intention was not to indicate that the tabletop rules are out of date - since, as you say, they don't spoil with age.


 * Another important note: while the lore might be (slightly) out of date in older editions in many cases on the wiki we've ruled that as in-universe misconceptions, so thereotically they might still be applicable in particular circumstances - it depends what you're using the lore for.


 * With that, I think we should probably stop crowding Fw190's talk page up, especially since there's now a talk page for the querier, Mealla, in question. Niirfa-sa 21:32, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yearbox Template
I have seen examples of those yearbox templates, and I agree with you. I have decided for the moment not to make those edits for a couple of reasons. The first reason and primary is that it easier to fill in those correctly after I get to -35000 than to do it as I go a long. Additionally, I intend to revisit all years, to standardize certain things. Eliminate 'Notes' and replace them with References and the Refs Tags. I want to figure out a good definition and delineate with environment vs people vs misc. For example when a city is founded is that yearbox/in-environment? Or people? et cetera. Lethalox 21:56, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Castle Spulzeer in 1373 DR
I'm a little confused buddy. I can't see where you got this idea from. In fact, in the conclusion section of Castle Spulzeer I wrote that it took place in 1367 DR. Accessories to be set in 1373 DR weren't really authored until 2004, 7 years after that module was published. hashtalk 05:46, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Spells
Here's my reasoning. I'm not "4e-izing" the spell because the spell doesn't even exist in 4th edition. What I'm doing is updating the spell template to reflect the new canon that druid spells are not the same as wizard spells or cleric prayers. They're "evocations" and are drawn from primal magic. This is not a post-Spellplague change. This is a retcon.

It's the same thing, in my mind, as updating something like "cure minor wounds" during the transition from 2e to 3e to reflect new 3e canon or the sudden allowance for races like dwarves to be wizards and other arcane classes. It's not an attempt to favor one edition over another - it's just my attempt to reflect canon.

My ideal goal would actually be that eventually anyone can look at these spells, which will be absent of any game mechanics whatsoever (perhaps even levels) and will be able to house rule them for whatever game ruleset they like - be it 2e, 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4e. That's why, among other things, I'm not adding anything like range type into the templates, because that would favor one edition over another.

I'm open to suggestions, but I really feel that to make the spells truly editionless, we should reflect the fact that things like schools of magic and domain now really only apply to arcane spells and divine prayers, respectively. Niirfa-sa 19:37, October 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point and you may be right that some revision is in order there. I did give it a little bit of thought, mostly along the lines, well, maybe rangers never used magic in the first place and when they did they were multiclassing druids, but the more I think about it now, the more I think that you're right, that does favor one edition over another, since there's clearly instances of using rangers magic in the novels and games.


 * My only hesitation is how we're going to rule ranger spells as they apply to the new system. Clearly they're not arcane spells, but are they divine or primal in nature? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say primal, given FR requires them to worship a nature deity in 3e and 3.5 but I could see where it might get tricky. Another possibility is ruling that 3e rangers who use spells are actually really seekers (a new class released in Player's Handbook 3 which is very much a ranger-esque primal class) but that again could be seen as favoritism towards one edition or another.


 * Hmmm... I think I'll go back to putting the pre-4e ranger spells in as evocations, with a possibility for switching them to seeker evocations at some point. However, before I do that, I might actually want to go and create the seeker article along with the other new 4e core classes added in the book (including monks and psions). Niirfa-sa 23:33, October 27, 2010 (UTC)