User:Moviesign/ArchiveTalk2022

Archives: 2011, 2012, 2013–14, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

As of this date, there were 27,359 articles on the FR Wiki, 9,598 files, and 76,701 total pages. My edit total was 31,686 / 32,770 depending on which number you believe.

Undermountain Project
Moviesign,

Good evening. Thank you for correcting me. I realise there are propably plenty of works on Undermountain and Skullport. The reason, however, is not everyone can afford or wants to buy every single DnD sourcebook ever printed. I understand that you are an exception. In my opinion, this wiki is for people who need information they don't have. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but a) you have every sourcebook ever printed (I have read your profile) and b) not all DnD fans can afford or want to buy everything. I am one of the people who would prefer not to buy everything. DnD, after all, is not about having the most sourcebooks or making all the campaigns excactly like what Wizards of the Coast print it but about making immersive and fun worlds. I believe that this wiki is solely to help people do that, for the articles in this wiki can really spark the imagination. I would still greatly appreciate, however, if you could send me via the talk page interesting information or even the link to somewhere I could download the books.

With all due respect,

Stu1131181 (talk) 17:39, January 1, 2019 (UTC)

Bot request
Hello! I have seen you helping Regis with renaming the citation templates of the comics, could your bot maybe also remove more of the "(boxed set)" from the names of Planescape citation? Interesting would be: Thanks a lot for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 09:06, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Cite book/Planes of Chaos (boxed set)/The Book of Chaos to Cite book/Planes of Chaos/The Book of Chaos
 * Cite book/Planes of Conflict (boxed set)/Liber Benevolentiae to Cite book/Planes of Conflict/Liber Benevolentiae
 * Cite book/Planes of Conflict (boxed set)/Liber Malevolentiae to Cite book/Planes of Conflict/Liber Malevolentiae


 * Yes, that should be no problem. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:32, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! Let me know if you have any others. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:55, January 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! The rest was just odds and ends and has been updated. I have just put out the corresponding deletion requests. Daranios (talk) 17:19, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Oops
What the notice said took a while to sink in, I came back to check about it, hoping no one else had seen...

Gringo300 (talk) 15:39, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections on "Marune". I just figured out I had the wrong edition and was going back to change them myself. Still struggling with some of the wiki syntax as well. --ISUBurd (talk) 22:31, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Need your help please on the syntax for this cite book reference in category "Belabranta": Ed Greenwood and Steven E. Schend (July 1994). “Campaign Guide”. City of Splendors (TSR, Inc). ISBN 0-5607-6868-1. ISUBurd (talk) 19:04, February 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like Ruf already fixed it. :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:05, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

Added a message
Good afternoon.

I see you have taken over my Undermountain project. That's really quite ok, because I see no way of stopping you. While I would think one would find it morally dubious to steal someone else's project, I'm good, because it really isn't all that fun. I really don't see how you gain these thousands of edits, but I suppose that means you have little else in your life. It's really quite a pointless bother when you're doing it endlessly and the same, in time you could spend on reading or home brewing. Well then, au revoir, as one might say. I'll try to keep an eye on the talk page's history, because I've little doubt you'll try to delete this. Well it's against the rules, rules I bet you wrote

With all due respect,

--Lemony Sn (talk) 16:14, February 27, 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are referring to, as I have made no significant edits to any of the Undermountain pages you have created. Your Dungeon Level template was a good idea and I took your initial concept and integrated it into our suite of Infoboxes with appropriate styles and formatting. It is already in use in a few places around the wiki, so you should be proud. I don't get where your attitude comes from. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 17:06, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

TSR JAM 1999
I was looking to add some information from this adventure compilation, but I don't find it in the list. I'm not savvy enough to add something like this especially since only part of the book is Realms-related, like a Dungeon magazine. The ISBN for the book is 0-7869-1445-9. The adventure is "Vale of the Dragon Oracle" by Bryon Wischstadt, pages 2-11. Can you add this? Let me know if you need more info. Thanks, ISUBurd (talk) 15:37, March 29, 2019 (UTC)


 * Who is listed as the editor of the compliation? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 16:00, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

Editing: Julia Martin, Steve Miller, Miranda Horner, Skip Williams, Cindi Rice, and Jim Butler

Compilation & Editing: John D. Rateliff


 * Thanks! There are now citation templates for the book and the individual adventure that you mentioned. Let me know if you have any questions. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 18:21, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

Is a deity an inhabitant?
Hello Moviesign! In your recent update on the Template:Deity, you have removed the autogeneration of Category:Inhabitants again. I had introduced that after "Deities by homeplane" categories had been replaced with the corresponding inhabitants categories, treating deities as a specific type of inhabitants. What do you think about that? Thanks for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 14:17, May 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * That was a cut/paste error on my part. I have restored the category. Thanks for noticing! &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:32, May 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reinstating. :-) Daranios (talk) 16:44, May 5, 2019 (UTC)

Bot Request
Is it possible to remove all of the following fields/lines from all Creature-using pages?

It would probably take some interesting searching, as you could have  with any number of spaces between the pipe and the field and the field and the equals sign.

They should all be empty now, according to DPL searches, and they have been removed from Creature itself.

This is low priority, as the fields won't do anything anymore, but it would be nice to wipe them all from the wiki. I already got a huge number of them, but I may have missed some.

Thanks.

~ Lhynard (talk) 21:38, June 8, 2019 (UTC)

"Templates Guru" – aha …!
Then you might be interested that "two-column references is now" not only "an option" anymore, but also the maximum number: I didn't achieve to create three columns …

… which then happens on the Baldur's Gate Wiki as well, where I have copied this one to, though with some changes. I ask you to take a look into that one, anyway, as I didn't manage to make it work if no single parameter is given – at least a pipe has to be set (which seems to be an issue with other of my templates as well). Would you mind, oh guru o'mine? ;) -- compleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 15:38, June 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * The 3 columns only show up if you have a really wide display (which I don't, but I can make it happen by changing the css).


 * I don't see anything wrong with your template. It seems to be working fine when I preview it with zero parameters. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 16:33, June 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, when I created the documentation, it ended always with a cite-error when using simply  – which now does not happen anymore … 😐
 * I should always ask the guru first. 🙂 Thanks! -- compleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:41, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

Map Contradictions
Hi Moviesign,

I was looking at the page on Ethdale and noticed the two maps contradict each other in regards to the positions of the River Eth (and Ethdale) and the River Flam. The Eastings Reach Atlas image which appears on the Ethdale page matches the description of Ethdale Geography in that it specificly states it is north of the River Flam. On the Golden Way map the River Eth (and thus Ethdale which is not labelled) is south of the River Flam and the city of Teflamm. It seems like the map of the Golden Way has incorrectly labelled the River Eth and River Flamm by swapping their respective names. I don't know if or how this could be fixed if I am right about this possible error.

Also the Geography description of Ethdale says it is in Thesk because it is North of the boundary between Thesk and The Great Dale. This is also contradictory because if it north of that boundary it should be in The Great Dale.

EDIT: apparently I am not the first one to see this: http://forum.candlekeep.com/post.asp?method=TopicQuote&TOPIC_ID=17068&FORUM_ID=8

Thanks. BGGCriticalMass (talk) 08:50, June 27, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is one of the annoying geographical contradictions that we discover when researching the Realms and have to document by pointing it out (see the note on the Ethdale page) and hope for some official errata or a correction in a later edition. As for the question about Ethdale being in the Great Dale or Thesk, the article states that is it likely that Ethdale was in Thesk because it was south of a town (Nyth) that was stated to be in Thesk (Unapproachable East p. 181) but the same source seemingly contradicts itself on page 113 where it states that the Great Dale extended down to "through the Forest of Lethyr to just shy of the River Flam" (italics mine) which seems to make the River Flam the southern boundary of the Great Dale. However, the passages on pages 116 and 171, where it states that Thesk only claimed the portion of the forest south of the River Flam, implies that the Great Dale only claimed the forest north of the Flam and not the coastal plain where Nyth and Ethdale were located. Thus, the word "likely" was used to describe the most probable scenario, but leaves it open for the reader to interpret the cited sources however they wish. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:01, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

No Light Domain for Halfling Pantheon
Could Sheela Peryroyl include Light Domain as well as Nature and Tempest since she is the Halfling Goddess of weather? Or perhaps Yondalla as Chief Deity and Goddess of fertility and provision (relating to agriculture and Chauntea)? It seems a shame for the Hin to miss out on a Light Domain deity.


 * Since her specialty priests in 2 edition were granted the Sun sphere, it is not a huge stretch to imagine Sheela could grant the Light domain in 3 or 5 edition, but this is a canon wiki and we have no official source that states this. As always, the DM is free to adjust things as they wish, but for the purposes of the wiki, Sheela does not grant the Light domain.


 * PS, please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) so it's easy to know to whom we are speaking :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:14, June 28, 2019 (UTC)

Alvarez
You know Alvarez? Probably not. He's this abyssal lord who was mentioned a really long time ago but very rarely came up ever again. I was wondering if I should just include whatever little information about him is in 'Faces of Evil' in the Layers of the Abyss page. In short terms he's a crazy inquisitous demon who one over his judge and inflicts terrible torture on anyone being he percieves as lawful. It's enough I can condense it into a brief subsection but not enough to carry a whole page.

Thoughts?

Vegepygmy (talk) 04:45, July 8, 2019 (UTC)


 * He gets a brief mention in Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss also. We have a guideline called the 3 Sentence Rule for creating new articles. I'd say that between the two sources, it should be no problem to come up with three sentences about him, especially if you use the Standardized Sections and have something for the Description, Personality, and Activities sections, and perhaps others. Oh hey, there is already an Alvarez page, so you can start with that and flesh it out. Ask us if you need help :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:15, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Graz'zt
So just gonna add this since it's demon related. Should Grazlzt be filed under the unique devil classification since he used to be a devil? I don't know if there's a former stipulation. Vegepygmy (talk) 00:28, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * Since his diabolic origin is controversial among scholars and, even if true, was before recorded history, we do not need to classify him as a devil until we have more evidence. Perhaps he will give an interview someday. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:55, August 19, 2019 (UTC)



First, the info box on the Graz'zt page of this wiki lists him as formerly an archdevil, and having a former home of The Nine Hells. Both of his origins are listed in the History section, along with an uncited statement of both truth in both, of which I know the reference to cite (and will work on digging it up). Albeit its a theory over at Candlekeep that, I believe Ed 'hinted' at being correct, so that specific portion could be called in to question. Additionally, he has a Connections section at the bottom of his page (below references, if it is to stay, it likely should be moved above the appendix and references) which is a graphic infobox linking him to the Lords of Nine.

Furthemore, in regrads to the statement of him being a former archdevil, I dont know if it being controversial among scolars prevents classification under the rules of this wiki. Graz'zt was listed as former archdevil in the 4th Edition Manual of the Planes. I believe that the Manual of the Planes would be considered Core D&D sources and the planes are often referenced in FR specifc source material. it is 4th edition and we do not have a more recent source contradicting this statement. Therefore, the 4th Edition statement of him being an archdevil must be considered canon and most preferential according to this wiki's 'What is Canon?' page.

All of this indicates he should indeed be filed under the Unique Devil classification. -TigonDJ (talk) 18:39, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

(Copy of canon policy and references deleted for brevity.)


 * Ahem. I'm sorry you went through all that to rebut what was mostly a tongue-in-cheek statement. First, we do not have a "Unique Devil" category. We do have Category:Archdevils and the more general Category:Archfiends to cover that distinction, and Graz'zt has been in both categories since 2008 (before I even joined this wiki). That, the references you cited, and the article itself presents a fairly complete picture of what we know of his origins and certainly does not deny that he was once a devil. Out of all this, I do think that either Graz'zt needs to be added to the Archdevils template, or that template needs to be removed from the page because he was never a Lord of the Nine. If that was what this was all about, then it should be brought up on the Graz'zt Talk page and discussed, but I have no problem with adding him to the Archdevil template if that is the consensus.


 * Additional note: I think the article could benefit from some of the info given in this Dragon #360 article. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:14, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Nabassu
I can't figure out how to add to the tanar'ri demon info box and nabassu are tanar'ri demons. Could you possibly add it or tell me how?

Vegepygmy (talk) 21:14, September 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * Done! &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:43, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Maurezhi
Sorry to bug you about demons again but I was looking at Maurezhi (the demons who wanted to be ghouls) and I can't for the life of me figure out where the info came form. Like how they weigh 180 pounds for example. I can't figure out the source for it at all. It was seemingly there the first time it was put in and everywhere else just lifted it from here it seems. Not sure what I should do with it if I want to fix it's citations.

Vegepygmy (talk) 02:28, September 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * Maurezhis are described in City of the Spider Queen and reprinted in Fiend Folio 3rd edition with errata that says their ability to take the shape of a person they consume functions like disguise self and not alter self. The height and weight seem to be just an average for medium-sized creatures and not a sourced fact, so you may delete it. Fifth edition info comes from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, of course. Hope that helps. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:10, September 5, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it did. Another note, at least the description part is plagiarized form Spider Queen (and not accidently by me if you noticed that little fiasco). Anyway just pointing that out and giving an affirmation.Vegepygmy (talk) 00:33, September 6, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it did. Another note, at least the description part is plagiarized form Spider Queen (and not accidently by me if you noticed that little fiasco). Anyway just pointing that out and giving an affirmation.Vegepygmy (talk) 00:33, September 6, 2019 (UTC)

Armanite
Hello again. This is becoming common. Just asking for the same thing as the nabassu for the armanites, since it isn't shown in the tanar'ri page.
 * Done! Although I should look into automating this list... &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:03, September 8, 2019 (UTC)

Daemons/Demons
Ello. So I think I'm generally done with the demons, although I'll probably pop back in every now and then to super super check there's no errors I looked over last time. But the reason I'm sending this is because I feel like editting the yugoloths. Pure evil seems cool. But 4e and 2e more or less say they weren't originally loths but demons. So should they be added to the demons list? I'd put it on the talk page but there's other similar daemons like the nycaloth that are also supposedly demonic. Yay or nay?Vegepygmy (talk) 18:11, September 11, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the references and such. I have never put them yet since I am new here. Thank you again for fixing them.


 * Actually, 2e and 4e differ on this. In 1e and 2e, the term used was "daemon" with an "a". These were always distinct from demons  without the "a".


 * Because of pressure from certain religious groups, 2e eventually abandoned the terms devil, demon, and daemon, and switched to baatezu, tanar'ri, and yugoloth, respectively.


 * So, no, 2e never says that yugoloths were demons.


 * 4e is the only case where yugoloths/daemons are changed into demons, and that is because 4e also threw away the traditional alignment grid and cosmologies.


 * 5e has restored it.


 * So, basically, we have a single rogue addition trying to retcon yugoloths into demons instead of daemons, but then 5e negated that change.


 * All yugoloths with 4e stats in their infoboxes are automatically going to be classified as demons, yes, because they are&mdash;but only for the purposes of 4e game stats&mdash;but I do not think that we should add them to the demon navigation templates, since 5e un-did that change by 4e.


 * I do think that we should at least note in the text of such pages something like, "Some scholars believed that the fooloth was among the demons,[4e citation here] but the majority rejected this view.[1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e citations here]"


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:34, September 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * Achewally.
 * I was originally mentioning Mezzaloths (at least I meant to but messed up and missed it)


 * "The wander the Lower Planes (particularly the Abyss) in search of creatures to torment, especially lemures. ECOLOGY: Sages have never ascertained exactly where mezzoloths are formed. They appear to be yugoloth adaptations of some other evil creature."


 * It only really works with the added 4e info, but combined it paints a certain picture.Which I know isn't much but it's what I originally meant. So I was thinking they had some relation to demons. But I suppose that probably isn't enough to lump them in with demons. Which makes me curious as to why they are currently in the demon category.


 * Vegepygmy (talk) 00:00, September 12, 2019 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting theory, but, yeah, it only would work for mezzoloths, and even then, it would only be speculation. Certainly, a note on the Mezzoloth page about the idea of them being adaptations of something else is OK.


 * FWIW, they are categorized as Demons purely for 4e categorization purposes, as I noted above.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:41, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Question about Protocol
Hello Moviesign,

I have a very silly question. If you leave a message on my talk page, do I have to answer in your talk page? or I can answer after your comment on my own talk page? Thank you very much!

Cordially,

(Urulokë (talk) 21:47, September 16, 2019 (UTC))


 * Please keep everything in one place so a multi-part conversation can be read easily :) Just keep an eye on Recent Changes or Wiki Activity to see if someone replied to you on their Talk page (or have email notifications turned on, if you want to be notified that way) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 23:45, September 16, 2019 (UTC)

Image policy
Hi.

I was looking for a generic image for our (to be overhauled) gnoll article and found File:Gnoll2e.jpg. Took a look then into the premium edition of the Monstrous Manual, where the Adobe Acrobat Reader allows me to copy the image and put it into an e.g. new file, created with GIMP. This new one has a resolution of 585×731, while the one uploaded here has only 205×246. Then thought to upload it (new upload as *.png, rather than *.jpg) but wasn't sure, as your policy doesn't specifically mention images taken out of sourcebooks – until I found its talk where you say "Images that cannot be uploaded: […] Full-size/resolution copyrighted images."

So, it's better to not upload that higher resolution one? And I guess, that would or should also be the case for any other wiki? Or do you have changed your mind about this since 2015? -- compleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 18:52, October 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * That Talk page has my personal guidelines that I typically follow when uploading images to the wiki. It never got any discussion, so I never added it to the official policy (but we probably should update it). The image you got from a PDF would mostly likely be either the full-sized image from the source, or a high-res scan of the image from the actual book (depends on who made the PDF). So, by my guidelines, that would fall under #6 and I would scale the image by 50% or so in each dimension. That would produce an image that is bigger than the one we have now, so it would be welcome to be uploaded (assuming all other qualities are the same). Since your original is already pretty small as images usually run, I suspect it has already been scaled down once and I might be lenient and only scale it by 66.67% (speaking in terms of the GIMP scale image tool). I also save it in PNG format to prevent further loss of quality. Does that answer your question? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:43, October 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks more like the source image, as its resolution is higher than depicted in the document, also without that one's frame. No transparency, unfortunately (outer borders are pure white).


 * As it's (currently) used only inside an infobox, what about scaling it down to 300px width (51%; still larger than the current one)? Also, though you say something else, use JPG, which may result in an additional loss of quality, compared to the original and copyrighted artwork. (It's no extra upload then, as well.) -- compleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:38, October 26, 2019 (UTC)


 * The days of scaling an image to fit an infobox are over—the new PIs automatically scale to best fit the box and ignore any dimensions you try to put on them (and ours are 270px wide) so I would rather go for the best quality/highest resolution we can get without infringing on copyright. Remember, everything on a Fandom wiki is available for others to use under the CC-By-SA license, so you don't know where the image might also be used, or for what purpose. If you are using GIMP, then sure, just save it in JPG but select the minimum compression (100% quality, or whatever it's called), but I don't mind the little extra work needed if you use PNG. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:07, October 26, 2019 (UTC)