User talk:BadCatMan

To limit the length of this page, content has been relocated to the following archive pages:
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2012
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2013
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2014
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2015
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2016
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2017
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2018
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2019

Grammar check
Hi. I need to ask you a favor. Can you check the new info I added to the Bahamut articles? I did from my cellphone. Add that to my terrible English, and I'm sure there is something to be fixed there. Thanks in advance.--Zero X (talk) 14:45, November 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops, I missed this. I'll try to check next time I get a chance. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:36, January 16, 2020 (UTC)

AlexMcClay
Hi, sorry that I couldn't get back to you earlier, I do not check my profile that much so I didn't realize that you sent a message until today. Thanks you for informing me about the plagiarism rules, I don't know why i did that, that's just how i had it in my quick notes so i guess I got confused. I will keep that in mind for the future, thanks.AlexMcClay (talk) 18:56, January 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for responding and understanding this. I've already removed the copied text from Shield of Iriaebor and fixed it up in other ways, so please feel free to expand on it with your own words and the canon lore. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:36, January 16, 2020 (UTC)

Alu-fiends, Cambions and Succubi
Hey again. Here's something I had noticed.

There's this whole 'thing' where alu fiends and cambions have changed definitions throughout the editions to the point where it's very confusing. And a similar thing had happened with succubi. So long-story short, here's my solution. How about we just leave Cambion and Alu-Fiend in their own half-fiend category (like they were before) but remove the devil conncection, seeing as how you could also put demon in there. And then succubi can go into the general fiend category. I just think it'd simplify things since there are already notes in the succbus and alu-fiend page about how what *precise* fiends they descend from have changed across the editions.Vegepygmy (talk) 04:51, January 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * I know, I covered it a bit when I developed the succubus article. It is confusing, but from the point of view of the FRW's edition-neutral policy (the convergence of the Past-tense and Canon policies), each version and its lore is equally valid. For the succubus, once a demon, always a demon, as well as a devil, and a fiend. From another viewpoint, a 1e/2e/3e fan looking in the demons category should find the succubus, while a 4e fan looking at devils and a 5e fan looking at general fiends should also expect to find succubi. Similarly, the 2e cambion is as valid as the 5e cambion. So, I think we should leave them with all their categories and navigation boxes for earlier editions. It's better to have more organization and information than less.

Hm. Alright well in that case if I can't narrow them down to *one* fiend type I'll just put them in all the fiend types. As in I will add devil, demon and fiend connection to each of them. Does that sound reasonable?Vegepygmy (talk) 05:41, January 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. Anything that was once valid can go in, demon, devil, and fiend as appropriate. You can place the latest 5e information first or give it primacy if it helps reduce confusion. My own approach is to discuss changing lore chronologically. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:48, January 19, 2020 (UTC)

Monster Manual 3rd edition
So I might be about to sound stupid, but I can't figure out how to cite the 3rd edition of the monster manual. Not 3.5 just 3rd. It had info on the barghest that the 3.5 version left out. Pls and thank you.Vegepygmy (talk) 15:52, January 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just going to jump in here. Can't you just use: Cite book/Monster Manual 3rd edition instead of Cite book/Monster Manual 3.5? ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 20:01, January 26, 2020 (UTC)

Weird. I remember trying that and it didn't work. Maybe I mistyped something and didn't realize. Thanks.Vegepygmy (talk) 20:13, January 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes it's hard to get the right one to auto-suggest when they're all so similarly titled. If you can't get the right one to come up, look through Category:Sourcebook_citation_templates and copy-paste the template name directly. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:15, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

Vaasan
Hi,

I was disapointed to notice that all the information that I uploaded onto the Vaasans page had been removed. I gathered everything from Races of Faerun (an official source for dnd lore). So I am unsure why it was removed, I am happy to link you the book so you can see that all the information I uploaded was from the book. Can you please explain how that is not lore? The current page is very incomplete and gives no indication of the Vaasan people. – User:Kalasznikov98


 * I know all the information is from the book – you copied it, word for word. That is copyright infringement. We do not accept copied text at the FRW; please see our Plagiarism policy. If you'd checked the edit history and summaries for the page, you'd've seen my note mentioning that. If you wish to add the lore about Vaasans, please rewrite it in your own words, in past tense, and arranged to suit a wiki article. — BadCatMan (talk) 16:15, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

Extra Spaces
I've noticed you have removed those extra spaces either between the DEFAULTSORT and Infobox, or between the Infobox and text body on a few of my pages. When I create these new pages those spaces aren't showing up and seem to appear later. Any idea why that is happening? Artemaz (talk) 01:39, February 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't a clue, I thought everyone saw the extra spaces and they were just made in error. They're very noticeable on the finished article pages. How are you writing your articles? — BadCatMan (talk) 01:43, February 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * I write the articles 100% within the source editor. It's just weird because those extra spaces don't get added every time. Seems random.Artemaz (talk) 02:42, February 25, 2020 (UTC)

Succubi and Iggwilv Mark II
So succubi are one of the few fiends that I don't know much about and if memory serves you wrote most of their article. Recently I read in a dragon article that succubi were the first tanar'ri *type* to appear in the Abyss, since they truly took on the mortal form rather than screwing with it. I can't remember where I read this part, but I also remember reading that the succubi abandoned the Abyss in droves at one point which helped Asmodeus become a god. Shouldn't that be in the succubus article?Vegepygmy


 * Perhaps. When I developed the succubus article, I didn't delve into the deep lore of the demons, but only focused on the succubus write-ups in each edition. They were complicated enough to handle and resolve discrepancies for. I only started it to get the page correctly cited and resolve an edit war about some kind of homebrew or stats from another game entirely. I'm sure there's more about their relations and history and fiendish politics to include, but that was a project too far for me, I don't know which sources to even look in.


 * The article does touch on their 4th-edition migration to the Nine Hells and Asmodeus's ascension, but it could be given more detail. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:50, March 5, 2020 (UTC)

Removal?
Hey BadCatMan, sorry to troublr you but just wondering why my edit was removed as I believe it had relevant information from a Wizard of the Coasts adventure?Bingers (talk) 12:41, March 5, 2020 (UTC)


 * What exactly was your edit? Your "Bingers" account has only this message recorded, so you must've been logged-out or not had an account before. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:48, March 5, 2020 (UTC)

Summon Shadow
Yes it was needed, the spell was missing the duration, with just vague wording the second edit was fixing bad grammer


 * The FRW does not give the crunch of spells and other effects. Please see our No Crunch policy. The phrasing conveyed the necessary information without the rules. The component statement was grammatically correct. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:47, March 19, 2020 (UTC)

Its vague information and very poor grammer, but you dont care because your in charge. I understand needing to paraphrase to stay under Hasbros radar. But the way its written is less that a 5th grader could do; it doesnt even mention that the spell was done away with in the newer editions ..

further information. the citing of footnote 9, is fraudulent. nothing on that page can be found in that TSR publication, I just went trough the entire suppliment.
 * The reference was in error, so I have fixed it. There is no need to mention newer editions at all, since doing so would be irrelevant to our in-universe focus. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 10:58, March 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * The original version was grammatically correct, just not a natural phrasing; thank you for improve description of the component, at least. However, it was still rather better than what you've written, with your incorrect spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Finally, I do care because I get paid to edit for a living. Have a nice self-isolated day. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:21, March 19, 2020 (UTC)

Ok, there was no spelling error. Really? You have a problem with cubic? And 3 meters cube is not the same, as most geeks are smart enough to realize this, there really isn’t a reason to make this mathematically correct except that being in physics for most of my years on this planet; tis a pet peeve... and the grammar was incorrect Feet instead of foot, I don’t believe I added any punctuation. Its still missing the useful information on actual duration of the spell. I don’t understand your lack of wanting new sources for the information presented, but its not my site. You must be using down under English, for I am lost at your "un natural" phrasing. I am friends with many of the original writers/inventors of this game. I’m sure even though some are no longer with us, they would prefer that the most accurate information be given out. In my personal correspondence I don’t worry about proper grammar as I’m just talk typing (finger issues) I shall not bother to fix any further articles

one last note, as i just finished reading Netheril: Empire of Magic by slade with Jim Butler 1996. Nowhere does this publication list the information given as "history". Further as the spell was published in 1989 in the players guide as this article cites under number 2 and is not altered by this later document, the below is fraudulent information as well (Fan fiction at best) It does list the name difference, but not when or by who; possibly i missed it as i do read extremly fast when challenged.

The spell was invented in −594 DR by the Netherese arcanist, Shadow,[1]  with the original name being Shadow's summons.[9]


 * Yes, as you said, you missed it. The date of the spell's invention is given in the cited source on page 28, and you can read the inventor's biography on the wiki if you're interested. I have added the duration of the spell to the article in non-crunchy terms (note that rounds in 2nd edition were 1 minute long, not 10 seconds) and corrected the dimensions of the summoning area. Thank you for your contribution toward getting the article thoroughly correct. We welcome good-faith efforts at accuracy as long as they comply with our policies and do not infringe on copyrights. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 17:18, March 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * "Really? You have a problem with cubic? And 3 meters cube is not the same, as most geeks are smart enough to realize this, there really isn’t a reason to make this mathematically correct except that being in physics for most of my years on this planet; tis a pet peeve..."
 * This was a rather insulting response. Many of us here are not only smart; we have PhDs.
 * In any case, your own understanding about the use of the word "cube" in this case is very flawed. If I say "10-foot cube," it does not mean "10 cubic feet." These are entirely different things, and both are correct terms. The former is an actual cube shape with a length of 10 feet. The latter is a volume, not necessarily a cube. A 10-foot cube has a volume of 1,000 cubic feet. Your changes were altogether incorrect. And no, this is not some obscure thing. No, this has nothing to do with BadCatMan being from Australia. Moreover, the sourcebooks themselves use this sort of terminology constantly.
 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:03, March 19, 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hey I saw that you changed the article "On the Nature of Shadow" and in the summery you said 'rephrase away from source' im 100% sure I didn't write using any source material, I changed all of it. The only similarity that i could find was in pg 180, and it said 'or in the common tongue'. Surely the wiki isn't that strict, it was just 5 words.

And i have a question for you, I'm trying to organize my personal notes, and I was wondering what program you use for writing your documents about Realmslore, novel info and that sort of stuff, because for now I'm using word, but I can't add references in the style that the FR wiki is in. AlexMcClay (talk) 12:21, March 22, 2020 (UTC)


 * That was the line I noted. And it's more than five words: The book says "It was K'sai'eb'mal, or in the common tongue, On the Nature of Shadows. You wrote "The book's title in Talfir was K’sai’eb’mal, or in the common tongue, On the Nature of Shadows. Altogether, all but the first five words were copied. While some descriptions and turns of phrase are unavoidable and can be reused in an article, or even quoted, in this case, it is possible and just better to rephrase to suit a standard wiki-style lead: state what it's called, what it is, and so on. Similarly, in Jewel Talondim, you copied "riding leathers dyed the same dusky violet color as her eyes" direct from the novel. No matter how small, it's still copying. After the problems before, I'd much prefer you rephrase entirely, not leave in the odd copied statement just for the sake of it.


 * I do work in Word documents, but I copy-paste in the templates, ref codes, and so on, and even whole articles to add to. I keep them in my documents, use and reuse them and write over them. Some I'm familiar enough with I can write them outright. For a reference, all you need is


 * and just fill in the blanks. Most of the time, if you put in the right title, it'll work, or else you can just correct it when you go to make the page. — BadCatMan (talk) 14:43, March 22, 2020 (UTC)

Epic Returns
Hey BadCat, long time no see. School has been totally busy, but now that I have an extended break, DW has returned :)

If you get a sec, please check out the Epic magic page, I think an Anon deleted a bunch of material!!! Darkwynters (talk) 16:50, March 28, 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! It's good to see you active here again. :)


 * Uh, since you already restored the text and blocked the vandal, you didn't have to tell me about it. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:28, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Titles vs Aliases
So I don't know how to do this but if I could make a suggestion. Could you add the alias bar to the template for deities? Because I tried using it and it didn't work and titles aren't always the same as other names.Vegepygmy (talk) 00:42, March 29, 2020 (UTC)


 * It's already there, you should be able to use the  entry. That will put the other names under "Aspects/Aliases". For example, see Ilmater and Selûne. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:33, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Immortal races for gods
Just a simple question this time. Entities like archdevils, demon lords, etc are supposed to use the deity template. But some of them were never mortal. When I plug in the race area with anything the actual result on the page preview lists it as their former mortal race. So for example if there was a god of balors and I put its former race down as balor it'd call that its mortal race. Can this be changed so that it just says former race?Vegepygmy (talk) 18:22, April 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * Answering for BadCatMan, since I recently worked on the  field for Deity.
 * First, there should not even be an option for  in that infobox anymore. It's an old, deprecated field. Are you copying from another page instead of using the fields provided on the Deity documentation? Or are you using the visual editor? That's generally a bad idea. It often messes up pages.
 * Anyhow, I just made it impossible to add those fields with the visual editor.
 * In any case, the answer to your question is, sure, I can change the header from "As a Mortal" to "Pre-Apotheosis".
 * I don't think it's worth the effort to change the  fields though. Anyone editing infoboxes should just read the documentation carefully about how each field is used.
 * Related: note that deities, by definition, do not have a race, so this should only be for deities that once were not.
 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:30, April 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * I was using the deity template you listed and the classic editor. It has mortal races as a field.Vegepygmy (talk) 18:35, April 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does, but you said, "When I plug in the race area…." If you meant, cool; that makes sense and is covered in my answer above.


 * Keep up good editing,
 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:43, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

ThanksVegepygmy (talk) 18:55, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Bloat
So I had just made the finishing touches on the 'Baalzebul' article and I began to wonder "Am I putting too much?" Granted I already wonder that a lot but specifically in this case it feels like their is a lot. At the same time, he's also one of the most important archdevils. Somewhat of a low-tier staple of dnd, and his page didn't exactly have justice done to that before. I suppose my actual request would be if you could look at it, maybe do a bit of copy-edit if you get the chance, and see if its up to standard so to speak. I know that pages aren't ever truly done because some obscure piece of writing somewhere that someone missed might surface, but I try to just take everything I know and can find and organize that first so that fitting in other pieces of information doesn't mess up transitions.Vegepygmy (talk) 04:28, April 9, 2020 (UTC)

Query
How can i find the rules on sourcing material for new/unclaimed pages?

Champeman22 (talk) 02:23, April 17, 2020 (UTC)Champeman22


 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify? — BadCatMan (talk) 02:56, April 17, 2020 (UTC)

Border Kingdoms, Include?
Hey, just checking, Ed Greenwood's sourcebook Border Kingdoms released a while back, and the article I read on Morrus's Unofficial Tabletop RPG News said that it was FR canon, which seems to fit in with what the FRW considers canon, so should the wiki being opening a page up for it, or am I missing something on how this works?Jacktoland (talk) 09:19, April 21, 2020 (GMT)


 * While some people are reporting it is canon, it's mainly due to having Ed Greenwood's name attached and author Alex Kammer's personal view. However, the official material only states it to be Adventurers League legal and Convention-Created Content, and even specifically for Kammer's Gamehole Con, which has exclusive AL rights to the BK. While Ed Greenwood's word is generally regarded as canon, judging by this reviewer stating much of it is copied from Greenwood's original BK articles, and others reporting it is an update of a 2018 work of the same name, it sounds like Greenwood's name is only attached to cover for the copied material. It may or may not be canon, but there's no way of knowing, and I would err on the side of "nope, not at all". — BadCatMan (talk) 12:15, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

Just a thank you
Not sure if i've ever said so, but thanks for all the copy-edits and overall quality control you do! Cheers! Artyom.pavlov (talk) 06:03, June 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. :) And thank you for your good articles of classic topics. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:15, June 4, 2020 (UTC)

Slaads v Slaadi
Just pointing out that the plural of Slaad can be either Slaads or Slaadi not just the latter.Vegepygmy (talk) 01:38, June 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * I figured "slaads" would've crept into some sources, but you used "slaadi" in the first line, so I used it throughout the slaad articles for consistency. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:47, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Slaads is used in 4e though.Vegepygmy (talk) 03:47, June 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * But "slaadi" is used in 5e, so I think that's the one to go with. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:53, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

"u" /ʌ/ vs "uh" /ə/
Hi! I'm new to this wiki and wiki editing in general and wanted to ask about where to find and discuss certain policies. Specifically, I'm asking because of the reversion you did to my edit to the Uthgar page. I was looking at the pronunciation guide and I understood that when a word has a schwa /ə/ it should be phonetically spelled "uh", whereas /ʌ/ should be represented by "u." (In the specific case of Uthgar, I think "uh" makes more sense even though the IPA would be /ʌ/.) So I guess my question is, should articles prioritize phonetic spellings as given by WotC, or the table in the pronunciation guide? Also I'm not sure if this is the place to ask or if another talk page is appropriate. Thanks for any help on this you can give!

Lucalator (talk) 19:39, August 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * This was a fine place to ask. :) I am answering, since I developed the system.


 * I am not sure that I understand your issue or the reason for the change. The official source pronunciation is "UHTH-gar" in two places. Typically, "uh" represents /ə/. So, I do not know on what basis you say that the IPA should be /ʌ/ here.


 * In general, we prioritize the phonetic spellings given in official sources, with the understanding that, sometimes, the phonetic spellings are ambiguous, because most of the writers do not seem to understand phonetic spellings very well. We have to have a justification for "correcting" such cases, however, and we have no reason to suspect, in this case, whether it should be /ʌ/ or /ə/. In the case of US English, which this wiki uses, there is no difference between those two sounds for most speakers anyhow.


 * I am also confused why you think that the pronunciation guide conflicts with what is found on the Uthgar page.


 * I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just trying to understand what you think the problem is. :)


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:11, August 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. In light of what you said, I think my question basically boils down to, since "uh" /ə/ and "u" /ʌ/ are specified as different in the pronunciation guide, what is the intent behind differentiating them? I'm coming at this from my background in linguistics (a bachelor's and master's degree, including several years of phonetics research), where in English phonology /ə/ is restricted to unstressed vowels. So based on that, the initial syllable of Uthgar would use the full vowel /ʌ/ rather than the reduced vowel /ə/ (because it is stressed). Also, to be clear, my question is less to do with Uthgar specifically and more how to apply the pronunciation guide and whether very rigorous IPA transcriptions are a priority.


 * I think one reasonable solution to this would be to just eliminate the difference between "u" and "uh" in the pronunciation guide (making them both refer to /ʌ/ and not using /ə/ at all). You make the point that for most speakers these vowels are the same (which I basically agree on), so I think that eliminating /ə/ and just using /ʌ/ would make sense. If we keep them separate, a problem arises in several articles where the audio pronounces a schwa while the IPA shows something else, for example the "o" in Aboleth and Acolyte, and the "oo" in Blibdoolpoolp (second syllable in the second pronunciation). (In all these examples, I think a full vowel would sound unnatural and is not likely the intended pronunciation - in other words, I think the audio is correct.) So if the goal of the pronunciation guide's inclusion of /ə/ is to make sure it shows up where there are actual schwas (and assuming we want a very rigorous IPA transcription), these article's IPA transcriptions should use /ə/. But if we just eliminate /ə/ from the guide, they could keep their current phonetic spellings/transcriptions on the basis that a native speaker would know which vowels to reduce. Really, I think any native English speaker would naturally reduce the vowels in the examples I gave, so changing them to schwas would not be very helpful/useful/illustrative.


 * All that said, realistically speaking this isn't that big of a deal, so if the wiki ends up keeping things as they are I can understand that haha :) I just brought this up because the suggestion of a stressed /ə/ in English was striking to me as a linguist, and in general the issue touches on my interests in phonetics/phonology and the Forgotten Realms.


 * Lucalator (talk) 22:57, August 15, 2020 (UTC); ETA line breaks Lucalator (talk) 22:59, August 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * "what is the intent behind differentiating them?" / "[Are] very rigorous IPA transcriptions&hellip; a priority?"


 * I consciously decided, when setting all of this up, to go for a broad phonetic transcription. So, no, definitely not very rigorous. This is what is recommended&mdash;according to articles that I have read on the topic&mdash;whenever one is trying to convert from "phonetic respellings". As you know, there are tons of different ways that linguists/phoneticians have done this. At the time, I used the (admittedly not very "linguistic") Dragon magazine article and a table used by Wikipedia for conversions from English phonetic spellings, and I merged the two. (You can compare our wiki's pronunciation table with the one I just linked you to on wikipedia and see how similar they are.) The problem is that the Wikipedia table uses "uh" for /ʌ/ and the Dragon article used "uh" for /ə/. Since I could not find a single example where I distinguish between those two sounds in my own spoken English, I figured that making "uh" always /ə/ was good enough for the broad phonetic transcription that I was going for.


 * "[I]n English phonology /ə/ is restricted to unstressed vowels. So based on that, the initial syllable of Uthgar would use the full vowel /ʌ/ rather than the reduced vowel /ə/ (because it is stressed)."


 * Unfortunately, the system does not take stress into account, although it is something that I might be able to do. I could probably make it so that "UH" was always /ʌ/ and "uh" was always /ə/. (But I was working under the assumption that the differences between the two were pushing too much into a narrow transcription, which is futile for a system that is supposed to be automated and general as much as possible.) Do you think that that would solve the issue?


 * "[I]f we just eliminate /ə/ from the guide, they could keep their current phonetic spellings/transcriptions on the basis that a native speaker would know which vowels to reduce."


 * That makes some sense, but it would also mean throwing out all uses of "uh" for non-stressed schwas, would it not?


 * "I'm coming at this from my background in linguistics."


 * Very cool! :) It's just a hobby for me. Hopefully, my answers help you see the history and choices behind our table.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:02, August 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S.: And thank you for being such a cordial discusser. :)
 * Yes, it's cool to get a look at the history behind this! I was intrigued to see IPA in the first place, and the system you made for automating the transcriptions is really cool, especially how you can mouse over them to get links like "u in dungeon" etc.


 * "I could probably make it so that "UH" was always /ʌ/ and "uh" was always /ə/."


 * Yes, this would be one way of resolving it.


 * "That makes some sense, but it would also mean throwing out all uses of "uh" for non-stressed schwas, would it not?"


 * I'm not sure I understand the "throwing out all uses of 'uh' for non-stressed schwa" part of this. This suggestion was to not have /ə/ on the table at all, and to have "uh" and "u" both phonetic spellings that translate to /ʌ/ (which I'm just noticing is actually the same as the Wikipedia table you mentioned). So non-stressed schwas would be rendered as /ʌ/ in IPA, which I think is fine for a very broad transcription.


 * "[...] I could not find a single example where I distinguish between those two sounds in my own spoken English[...]"


 * Phonetically speaking, the difference is just in duration - /ʌ/ will be longer than /ə/. For me, this is most noticeable in words like "until" (/ən/) and "unknown" (/ʌn/). Also, sometimes schwas can be deleted; for instance, I can pronounce "every" as [ɛvri] or [ɛvəri], but you won't find /ʌ/ being deleted this way. The real difference is more phonological (in your mental representation of the sound, and how it might be pronounced in different contexts) than phonetic (physical speech properties), which is basically why I suggested just doing away with /ə/ as a transcription altogether (and just using /ʌ/) all the time - my idea being that the transcriber isn't going to try to find schwas, especially since they are often represented with other letters (e.g. Acolyte where it's "o"). If you want to have some schwas but not all, I think the solution you mentioned ("UH" is /ʌ/, "uh" is /ə/) would be a good step. I didn't mean to make a bunch of work for you though haha, as it's really a small thing.


 * Also, I'm sure you've already seen some, but Wikipedia has pretty good phonology pages - if you wanted to think more about this you might be interested in this page on vowel reduction.