User talk:SilverTiger12

Welcome!
Well met, SilverTiger12, and welcome to the Forgotten Realms Wiki! Thank you for your edit to the Delimbiyr Vale page. We hope you like the place and decide to stay and explore the Forgotten Realms with us.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful, that explain who we are and what we do and how we do it. You should find these a useful reference, or maybe they could give you some ideas for something to do.

It's our goal to be a complete and reliable encyclopaedia of the official Forgotten Realms in all its forms, and a valuable resource for all Realms fans, players, and dungeon masters. As such, we do not accept fan fiction, homebrew lore, and player characters. All information added to this wiki must be attributed to an official source. Information must not be copied from sourcebooks and novels. Please always give a source for your information, and explain what you've done in the "summary" box.

We hope you enjoy editing here. Please sign your messages on Talk and Forum pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, please leave a message on my talk page or ask any of the administrators about things.

Again, welcome! Happy scribing!

— Hashimashadoo (talk) 17:20, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Explanation for Block
Hi, welcome to our wiki.

I have put a temporary block on your account, because you are adding multiple pages that do not conform to our standards here. We are happy to have new contributors, but we want to uphold certain standards. Please read our policies. Here are the major things that you are missing.


 * 1) Articles must be related to the Forgotten Realms. This means that you must provide a source from a Forgotten Realms book, game, etc.
 * 2) Articles need to be in a proper wiki format. This includes links, section headings, etc. Raw text is not appropriate.
 * 3) Articles must have citations using our established reference format. And Wikipedia does not count as a source.

We are happy to help you get started, but right now, your new additions are just causing us a lot of work, since we have to go fix all of them or else delete them altogether. So I am blocking you until you acknowledge this note. Then, we can work together to get you editing and adding content, slowly, in the proper manner.

Thanks for understanding!

~ Lhynard (talk) 18:11, January 5, 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was just trying to start those pages. I am very new to Wikia, and have yet to figure out much about editing. I will try to meet the standards in the future, and will likely stick to cleaning up articles for the most part.

SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:34, January 5, 2018 (UTC)SilverTiger12


 * Thanks for responding so quickly! You have made other good edits here so far. My advice would be to stick with edits for now and to work on the three articles that you started, until you learn more about wiki editing. Feel free to ask any questions to me or the other users. Happy editing! ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:49, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Removing Content?
I have rolled back your edits to Pasocada Basin and Metahel, because in both cases, you have removed large amounts of sourced information. I do not understand why you have done this. These articles did not need such major rewrites, and they certainly did not need to have good content removed. I'm confused why you did this. ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:47, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, it looks like you had some good additions to add. That is great, and I do hope that you go back and add that information. It is the removal of information and the rewriting of other editor's hard work that is the problem. ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:52, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I only noticed much later that I'd removed some stuff that maybe I shouldn't have. Unfortunately, it was getting late, so I meant to go back later and finish it. Sorry.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:14, January 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, no worries. See some of my comments over at Talk:Pasocada Basin. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:12, January 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * On the Pasocada Basin & related locations: there are a lot of stub-location pages (such as Peshtobo or Growling Falls) that are locations in the Pasocada Basin. Some of these barely meet the three-sentence rule, while others don't even make that. So, would it be possible to delete some of those pages and move the descriptions to a larger page? For instance, delete Black Mesa but write a longer description about it on the Pasocada Basin under places of interest. Even if it does meet the three-sentence rule (like maybe Dunobo Springs), the Pasocada Basin area is so remote and little-known that I doubt it is worth it to keep all those pages, when by merging them I could create a larger, meaty-er article.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:09, February 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, I we prefer to keep the little articles. There are several reasons for this.


 * In the future, they may be expanded. This sort of thing actually happened with Chult articles recently. Few people cared about Chult, and there were a lot of stub articles, but then WotC published Tomb of Annihilation, and suddenly there was a lot to say about some previously ignored places.
 * There almost always is more about a topic that can be stretched out than one at first thinks. For a place like Black Mesa, perhaps there is a map that provides information beyond the text. Perhaps a Dungeon magazine actually visited the place, and none of us are aware of it. It is always going to be easier to expand a stub if you discover new lore, than if you later have to split content from an article.
 * Beyond an expansion of text, it is good for every subtopic to be able to have its own infobox.
 * Articles serve as more than just text; with the categorization system, they are able to get their own classification and counting. For example, if I want to know how many bodies of water are in the Pasocada Basin, I simply go to any of the category pages for it and click the link to Bodies of Water. This only can happen if the Springs have their own page.
 * An article page is far more stable than a redirect to a sub-heading of an article, which could be renamed or moved.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 04:55, February 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasoning, but I'll keep the paragraphs on the Pasocada Basin page as well. They fit well there, I feel, and help give the page a more complete picture of the environment and geography.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:53, February 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's great. I agree with you that they help things, and there is nothing wrong with having duplicated information like that on a small scale for the sake of filling in an article about a region. (I meant to mention this above&mdash;that keeping stubs does not mean not also having information in the bigger article&mdash;but I forgot.)


 * Keep up the good work!


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:43, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

I went to add the large chunk of information that you removed from Archdevil to Asmodeus only to find that you already moved it there. You are on top of things! :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:29, February 8, 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm trying to make sure that I don't remove anything important. Since the archdevil pages are all a mess, I'm just moving the long articles from Archdevil to their individual pages, to await later clean-up. The Asmodeus notes was especially annoying on that page.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:34, February 8, 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:59, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Tewahca/Tewacha
So, I have been doing much work on just about everything in Maztica. Recently, I noticed that Tewahca, a ruined city in Maztica, did not have an page. So I created a page, filled it in, cited it, etc. Nothing went wrong, it turned out fine. But... Later today, I looked at Category:Locations in Maztica. And in the list under "T", there was another page, titled "Tewacha", as well. The "Tewacha" page is also about Tewahca. I went back and checked, and Tewahca is the proper spelling. But the Tewacha page needs to be deleted or something. Thanks for your help.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:58, February 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone took care of the error, Silver. Good work on the Wiki so far :) - Darkwynters (talk) 16:31, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

New Navbox Assistance
Hi. It's me again, but this time, I am not complaining about anything. :)

I was wondering if you wanted to help make a new "navbox" for fiends. Here is the one that I made for Celestials:

On the Fiend page you recently added several navboxes. That is great for now, but ideally, fiends really deserve their own single navbox; those other navboxes belong further down the hierarchy, just like Archons and Angels belong at Celestial archon and Angel, not on Celestial.

Here's what I have in mind:

I am happy to take any suggestions. Also, is there another broad category? Should Demodand go between Yugoloth and Demon? Or should they be listed below with the miscellaneous fiends? What belongs in the miscellaneous fiends list?

~ Lhynard (talk) 15:17, February 9, 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not very good at that complex of coding, but the template above seems good. As for demodands, info on them seems scarce. Putting them between Demon and Yugoloth would work, since they supposedly have a chaotic taint. But so would putting them down below (might be better option, actually) Make Yugoloth the dominant name, and Daemon the lesser, though, because Yugoloth is more commonly used and daemon is very (also too) similar to demon to be clear. Also, the half-fiend/fiend-blooded races are a kind of category, so maybe put Half-fiend as a small, below link (i.e. Woo)? As for the misc fiends, definitely put "hellhound", "nightmare", "larvae" and "barghests". Probably "night hag" and "maelephant" as well. Not so sure about rakshasa, though, because they don't really seem like fiends. Evil outsiders, yes, but not strictly fiends. All in all, having a "Fiend" template sounds nice, and I really liked the Celestials template.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:01, February 9, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Here's round 2:


 * In 3e, at least, "fiend" is defined on p. 308 of MMv.3.5 to mean "outsiders with the evil subtype."


 * Fiendish creatures are creatures living on the fiendish planes, such as animals, that are not inherently evil to the same extent as fiends. They are usually fiendish versions of something else, like a fiendish dog. They are almost always evil in outlook, but they don't actually have fiendish blood.


 * Half-fiends are almost always evil, and they are technically outsiders, but they are not fiends by 3e rules. The difference is that if a devil were to somehow convert and become neutral, it would still be treated as evil for all spell effects and damage reduction and all that. Evil is in their blood. For a half-fiend, it's only in half of their blood. Even though draegloths are half-fiends, they actually are given the evil subtype, making them both fiends and half-fiends, but that doesn't really make any sense, so I think it makes sense to keep them in a separate section for realted creatures.


 * Rakshasas are outsiders with the evil subtype in 3e. Moreover, they are specifically given in FR sources as the "fiendish bloodline" of some tieflings. They also have the fiend type in 5e.


 * Nightmares are evil magical beasts in 3e, but they are called fiends in 5e.


 * Do larvae ever get stats in 3e? In any case, they are fiends is 5e.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:16, February 13, 2018 (UTC)


 * That looks very nice, Lhynard. And yes, both nightmares and larvae are technically fiends. I have no idea about stats for the larvae, though. As for rakshasa, that is more personal bias on my part- they never had the same "feel" as other fiends to me. Having the 'related creatures' section is brilliant; and yes, draegloths seem to be confusingly categorized as both fiends and half-fiends. I prefer to put them down as half-fiends, because it makes more sense. All in all, wonderful work.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:17, February 13, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll go make it official and add it to the pages. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:39, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Citation Templates
Don't hesitate to ask if you need a new citation template made up. Just give what information you know to an admin and we'll be happy to make one for you. Your Obsidian dragon find was new to me, as was the whole Mind's Eye archive. I don't know if any of it applies to the Forgotten Realms, but it was a cool find. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:30, February 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. Thanks. Actually, I know the location of a lot of archived articles like that, mostly from 3.5e and 4e. If you need some articles, I can try to track them down.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:52, February 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * If you feel so inclined, you can take a look through our Category:Web citation templates and see if there are any FR-related articles that we don't have yet. Unfortunately, a lot of articles required a subscription to see more than just the introductory paragraph. New sources generate new articles. :) Just a thought, but don't let it distract you from working on your favorite subjects. We want you to have fun and enjoy what you're doing, not get burned out on tedium. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:47, February 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's a lot of articles you don't have that I've found archives for. However, most of it is stuff that is more general DnD stuff than Realms-specific stuff, and I'm not good at telling what is applicable to the Realms and what isn't. So it is more, tell me what article/topic you are looking for, and I'll try to find it in the archives. The sheer volume of archived articles, though, is a bit prohibitive for just casual going-through.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:17, February 13, 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the Realms are big enough that we don't need to bring in generic DnD except when applicable. If something is mentioned in an official Forgotten Realms publication or web site, then it's fair game. If you want to make a note of an obscure source, you can link it in the Talk page belonging to something related, or you can add a request for a write-up and link it there. Find your corner of the Realms and have fun. We're glad you're here! &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:29, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Whoa! Wait on the Category Changes
Hey, adding Category:Inhabitants by race is great for all the low-level categories that include individuals, but do not remove low-level categories from their parent categories!

I also am glad that you are removing the general race categories from individuals. Good work there.

~ Lhynard (talk) 19:16, March 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I should leave a category that should really go under Inhabitants under Creatures? That doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I did categorize them as "Inhabitants by Race" instead. If there's something I'm missing, though, please explain. Because those Inhabitants cats were driving me crazy where they were.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:19, March 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * All inhabitants (except gods who never were) are creatures. The intent of the categories is to be able to start at the top&mdash;Category:Creatures, the most general&mdash;and work one's way down to the most specific&mdash;individuals (or inhabitants). For example, Category:Mariliths should include all those pages for individuals who have marilith as their race. Category:Mariliths is as specific a race as one can get. That is, the race mariliths does not have any subraces. Category:Mariliths is a lowest-level category of the creatures hierarchy. The Category:Mariliths category should get two parent categories: Category:Inhabitants by race, which should be the parent category for all races, and Category:Tanar'ri, because all mariliths are tanar'ri.


 * It is OK and expected for category pages to belong to multiple hierarchy trees at the same time.


 * So yes, you are correct to be adding Category:Inhabitants by race to all of the low-level creature category pages, that is, to all of the race categories, but you are wrong to be removing the parent, or "race families", categories from the race categories.


 * You are also correct to be removing the race family categories from the articles for individuals. I describe myself as French–Irish by ethnicity; I don't go around telling people that I am human, much less that I am a humanoid, even though I am. But, I should find myself at the bottom of both the creatures hierarchy and the inhabitants hierachy:
 * Creatures->Humanoids->Humans->French–Irish->Lhynard
 * Inhabitants->Inhabitants by race->French–Irish->Lhynard


 * I hope this helps clarify things for you! :)


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:40, March 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * Only a little. It makes sense, but it drives me crazy. Those cat.s just don't seem to belong.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:11, March 2, 2018 (UTC)