User talk:Lhynard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Archives: 2014

Creature vs. Inhabitant
Okay, Lhyn has given me an opportunity to discuss the question on whether creatures are inhabitants... a long time ago, High admin FW stated only specific persons, such as Drizzt Do'Urden go into Category:Inhabitants of Toril and drow do not... so I would like to have another vote on what other editors think... just pasting, since you are SO fast with the edits :) - Darkwynters (talk) 16:53, November 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it! Replied over at Talk:Dragon turtle. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:58, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Read: Help:Writing an article about a person... now we might change this, but let's wait to see what others think. - Darkwynters (talk) 17:00, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Question
Are we not allowed to post pics from sourcebooks? I've seen hundreds of pics taken directly from D&D sourcebooks on this site. Artemas Entreri (talk) 12:39, March 20, 2015


 * It is considered "fair-use" to use a low-resolution picture/image to illustrate a page about a topic about that picture. However, a scan of text is a different thing altogether. Copying text verbatim is a form of plagiarism, and that's precisely what a scan of text is. If you wish to include the information in that table, it needs to be rewritten in your own words and in your own format.


 * Check with the admins for more information.


 * It's good to see more info about Zakhara, by the way. Thanks!


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:02, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Manshaka
Hi Lhynard. As you wished, I added some more about Vajra Valmeyjar. Enjoy!

At some point in these comics, I'll need to do a lot of work on Manshaka. Thanks for starting an article stub on that. I made some notes on the place, but didn't get around to writing an article; the amount of work required just to start adding the comics lore was what put me off the comics for a while. I would at some point, but to avoid stepping on each other's toes, did you have plans to work on Manshaka in the future, along with your Calimshan work? — BadCatMan (talk) 09:55, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Great!


 * Yeah, it's tough summarizing down large chunks of story.


 * Yes, Manshakalaka is on my list. (One of my key NPCs is from there.) I'll bump it up in my priority and get to it sometime this week. ~ Lhynard (talk) 10:50, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * No hurry, we don't visit the place until issue #13 :) Big Vajra story, that one, with flashbacks to her past. For now, I'll focus on Pasha Abon Duum and his bounty seekers, and add to Manshaka as I come across lore. I think we can make a pretty cool article together. :) — BadCatMan (talk) 11:44, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, all finished with Manshaka. See what you think. ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Damn, you work quick! Excellent work. See, you know all about Calimshan's history and know what drudachs and such are, which saves me some hassle. :) I'll add what else I've found later. It's amazing how many people claim to have survived and escaped the unsurvivable and inescapable Blood Arenas... — BadCatMan (talk) 08:37, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

N-Dashes
FYI, you do not need to bother putting n-dashes in page ranges inside a Cite template. Dashes are automatically converted to n-dashes by the template. It won't hurt if you do, but it's an unnecessary step while editing. If you discover otherwise, please let me know. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:19, April 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. BatCat did that; I didn't bother correcting him.
 * By the way, I was impressed when I figured out that you auto did it! It's a pet peeve of mine when folk don't use en dashes in ranges. Honestly, it helped keep me involved here, because I saw that the admins care about details. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:24, April 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * Fonts, typesetting, and mathematical notation have been a minor fascination for me since the days of (showing my age here) the Selectric typewriter. I think it adds credibility to our wiki if we keep it scholarly, focused, adhere to our policies, and pay attention to detail. And hey, if it prompted you to stick around, it's working! :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 19:09, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

XML Best Practices
Please take a glance at XML Syntax and try to maintain good XML syntax when you are editing. The TLDR version: instead of  it should be enclosed in quotes with a space before the closing, like. Just because we can get away with bad practices now, doesn't mean we will in the future. I didn't change your style on Wild dwarf because it was easier to cut and paste the tags rather than risk typos. I will do a global search and replace when I'm done adding 2e info, unless you beat me to it. Thanks! &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:00, April 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought wiki's used HTML, not XML, which was why I wasn't wasting space. Sorry, I can switch over my style from here on out. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:10, April 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * Wiki's come in lots of different flavors and HTML will work on this wiki, but I'm looking toward the future and trying to be XHTML compliant (the XML article was just the first one I came to that had the syntax spelled out). For reasons, you can start with HTML Versus XHTML, if you're interested. As for space, please feel free to add whitespace and arrange your pages to make the wiki code readable and maintainable (of course, the look of the rendered wiki page should take precedence). When a single image file can take up hundreds of kilobytes or more, it's hard to care about a few bytes for spaces, double quotes, and slashes. If you were talking about screen real estate, well, I would still opt for readability over compactness, but that's a personal preference. Hope that helps. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:57, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Wanted Articles
You know, Lhynard, you don't have to make these articles. Abyssal drake only gets 61 links because it appears in List of demons, which is used 61 times. It doesn't actually appear in the Realms, AFAIK. You could save your excellent article-writing skills for more Realms-focused topics. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:34, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Should it perhaps be deleted from Template:List of demons? I figured A) it was known to be in the Realms because it was included in that list and B) I thought I read somewhere on this wiki that material about creatures from the Outer Planes was assumed Realms canon unless conflicted elsewhere. Maybe I misunderstood that latter part? ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Most things in D&D can appear in the Realms, true, but they don't necessarily will appear either. But we do accept these things as valid material. The Unrelated template is to indicate an article doesn't necessarily connect specifically to the Realms, even if it is technically canon. I made it ages ago, and I'm giving it new life based on a Candlekeep discussion (start at the bottom).
 * But my main point was... No one cares about abyssal drakes. :) It's not a highly wanted article, it only achieves that status by virtue of appearing in a connections template. I'm not concerned about red links myself. It's not a Realms-specific subject. So, don't feel obliged to write it because of the list, write up what interests you (as I would tell all editors). — BadCatMan (talk) 15:36, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * I really like your Template:Unrelated and will start tagging articles as I find them.


 * FWIW, I agree with you and others on the Candlekeep forum that it's a waste of time to write articles not part of the Realm. Again, here I was misled in thinking that it was listed on Template:List of demons because some FR sourcebook I've not seen included such information. (Is there an FR sourcebook on demons and devils?)


 * What about all these author pages? Can't we just have the links in the citation template point out to Wikipedia? That's what I've been doing with the ones for things like Atari.


 * In general, for things like Chasme, which is a wanted article primarily because of the Template:List of demons but which you also link to in your Vajra and co. articles, should we just link out to somewhere else?


 * I have a completely different response towards red links than you. :) I hate seeing them. (Maybe it's a psychological problem I have? :) ) Seriously though, it's frustrating if I'm reading through an article and see that an abomination runs such-and-such a guild, yet I have no idea what an abomination is.


 * Anyhow, I get it; focus more on confirmed FR things.&hellip; ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:01, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, one thing I noted at Candlekeep was that the FRW has become the de facto Core D&D wiki. Drive-by editors tend to add these creatures. While they're valid for the wiki, they're not particularly relevant to the wiki, which is kind of a quandary most wikis deal with. I've heard it said, and said before at Talk:Willow, that the more comprehensive a wiki becomes, the more information it has to cover from the real world and other worlds. This is an extension of that, really. We have to bear a lot of core-only material, on the basis that it may one day have a Realms connection. We'll have a page on Krynn at some point, due to crossovers and references, as we already do on Oerth.


 * No, there's no specific FR sourcebook on demons and devils, but they certainly get a lot of references in novels and sourcebooks.


 * Author pages are fine, IMO, they're extensions of the pages for sourcebooks and novels. The authors probably like them too. :)


 * I should write an article on chasme at some point, as they reappear in the comics. I need to find a source for them, though.


 * I'm not a fan of external links within the main article. That's why I've developed the External Links section and a lot of templates leading out to other wikis. That clearly shows to the reader that a link goes elsewhere, that it won't be part of our wiki. Within the main text of an article, I prefer links feed back to other pages on the wiki, as it encourages editors to build the web of intra-wiki links and build a more comprehensive wiki (as you have been doing a good job of). A red link just demands a new article, as you know, but a pale blue one does not.


 * Perhaps the main problem is those Content templates. I don't often use them myself, but other people seem to. A red link is unhelpful, and does give the wrong impression that X should appear on the wiki when it's only been included in the list for completeness's sake, not relevance. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:30, April 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * Just want to stick my nose here, I would like to keep the creatures, sooner or later a creature of that type will appear and give a name to that type of monster and if we get willow, Chamse should have a go as well. I get the Red link hatred, I use too have to to I went after the demon pages sadly I did copy-paste parts of it... The thing about the Boxes and there red links is that when you start looking you will find more to fill the box... and that makes even more 60+ Red linked pages :S!. Also I am biased as I like to make creature and monster pages ^^! Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated  08:05, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Template Etiquette
Dude. DO NOT make significant changes to a critical template without testing it in your sandbox first. Furthermore, we have a Forum for discussing proposed changes to infoboxes and other elements of the wiki. Please use it. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 12:54, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I made sure I tested it thoroughly with the preview feature where I could. I made certain that my changes would not be disruptive to anyone else; the only page content that visibly changed during the entire process was Aranea, and I left a comment for others to respond there, which they have (Talk:Aranea). So while I could have done better in not having as many page edits (though it was only 7), I did try hard not to break anything and I did request feedback before adding the appearance tabs to any other pages. (Now that would have been disruptive!) I'll go start a forum page now, if you'd like me to. I was just following wikipedia:en:WP:BOLD, and I was careful. If you want me to revert my changes, I won't be offended. Again, sorry if I posed any problems for you; I'm just trying to make this wiki a better place like the rest of you, and honestly, I was inspired by the awesome things you've done here with template in the past. ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:23, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally missed your request for feedback because it was done in an Edit Summary instead of on a Talk page or Forum post, and it was done in the wee hours of the morning (I was asleep) after you had already made several edits to the template. Granted, you got a thumbs up from at least one admin, but could you give us at least a day to review big changes? And if you don't get sufficient feedback, please bump your request. I try to be on-line every day, and I religiously (one might even say compulsively) refresh the Recent Changes page, but I had no idea you had altered the template until I got to work and glanced at the wiki again.
 * As for being disruptive, keep in mind that this wiki gets at least 50K hits per day (I've seen it as high as 80K, but I don't keep track). Seven edits over the course of an hour is potentially quite disruptive, even if you're being careful. So please, use the sandbox for testing to minimize the possibility of messing up a forward-facing template. Maybe there is someone else out there like you that pays attention to the details and might be turned off by broken infoboxes. Okay, I'll stop now before I go hyperbolic. The appearance box looks nice, but someone chose really ugly text and background colors. :b Can we just let those go to default, or use one of the Creature subtemplates? Curmudgeonly yours, &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 17:30, April 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally agree about those colors! I just left them there because they were there when I arrived. Done and done. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:45, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: enjoyed your closing


 * Lhyn, you are doing good work on this wiki... but you are making ONE fatal mistake... this wiki is a community...for the most part, we work together... we are not lone wolves... if I have an idea, I share it with other editors... I have been cringing every time I get on the wiki lately, because I monitor for troll activity and there have now been a billion edits everyday... now this is a good thing, but also a bad thing... I am betting that you have no idea how much time and effort, Movie, has put into his templates... and you have changed them without consulting the wiki community... my advice, SLOW DOWN... and COMMUNICATE... I usually wait until 2 people (admins, for the most part) are okay with my idea before going edit-crazy. So continue your impressive editing, but remember this wiki is a community. Thanks :) - Darkwynters (talk) 21:33, April 15, 2015 (UTC)