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

Wheloon Fan Art
Hi buddy! Could you reconsider the Wheloon edit? Or at least place it somewhere, in a section called fan art? I have been work on this rendering for days, every house has the same format as the map shows and I tried to follow the best I could every detail either in Volo's Guide To Cormyr, Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave and Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. I have other renderings if you wish to discuss.

Of course, there is not all details there, so some things had to be assumed, like hills (according to the book, the houses and roads follow the hills) and size of houses.

Thanks, and great work keeping the site.


 * Hi, Matferib,


 * I am another of the admins here. In general, we are very cautious about allowing fan art on this site. (See our policy proposal here: Forgotten Realms Wiki:Fan Art.) I did not actually see the image that you uploaded, so I will not try to answer for BadCatMan, but you do have the option of creating a sandbox and uploading the image to use there or elsewhere on your own user page. It is usually a better idea to do something like that before making a major change to a Featured Article page. That way, others can see the change and talk about it first.


 * Thanks for contributing to the wiki!


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:41, January 7, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will create my sandbox!


 * Sorry, I'm really not in favour of the use of fan-art on the wiki, so I may have been too harsh in my judgement. You didn't explain much, so I took the image to be a generic fantasy town scene, simply labelled as Wheloon (which is commonly done in fan art). But if it is based strictly off the maps, then I'm much better disposed to it.


 * I've restored File:Por do sol wheloon.jpg (it's smaller than the .png you used in the article). Perhaps you could add the Information template to detail what it is, what it's based on, and your own details, then I and the other admins can reconsider. — BadCatMan (talk) 15:28, January 7, 2019 (UTC)


 * Cool, I have added the information template as requested. Please let me know if you need more information.

Oops
It took a few minutes for the notice on the Succubus page to sink in. I could revert the edits I did, if I need to.

Gringo300 (talk) 15:43, February 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * It's no problem, I'd already added all the work I'd done and I might not get back to it for a day or so, so editing it now was fine. One thing, however: when you fill in your Edit Summary, "clean up" is very vague and can imply extensive revisions or that the page was messy beforehand, which was confusing because I'd just done the cleanup. Instead, say just what you did, like "adding missing bracket" or "added plural" so it's clear to everyone what kind of change was made. — BadCatMan (talk) 15:51, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...
...a usual for the clean-up! It was some more errors in pyrite then average this time. :-) Daranios (talk) 20:07, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

Underdarks
There is an article titled "Abeiran Underdark" and an article titled "Underdark".

Shouldn't the "Underdark" article be titled "Torilian Underdark"?

Gringo300 (talk) 20:16, February 28, 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really. 99% of references to the Underdark will be to the one on Toril, or to an Underdark in general, which to our perspective is the same thing. It doesn't need distinguishing as "Torilian". Only Underdarks of different worlds like Abeir need clarifying. "Underdark (Abeir)" might be a better page title, but it's not very important. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:05, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

Moonshaes
Hi

Jumping over from Greyhawk I will focus a bit more on Moonshaes and reread the Moonshae Novels to get some more info. Found some more detailed Moonshae maps from WotC, How do you reference maps?

Kenneth Blomqvist (talk) 13:07, March 12, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! Welcome to the wiki! Maps are referenced in the normal way, that is, cited to the books they appear in. It's better to cite the book where possible rather an image provided on the website that might lack context like its edition or year. We have citation templates for many of the maps that appear in books, you can make new ones if you need, or you can cite the book itself or a page where the map is shown. For example, you might use (don't have that one yet). — BadCatMan (talk) 14:19, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Being Slack
Hi all! I can no longer access the Slack group, owing to my browsers being too old and my computer being too old. Ain't the advance of technology great? :\ So, you won't be seeing me on there for a while, but I could check in via a borrowed laptop occasionally if you really need me. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:59, March 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * so sad


 * If it makes you feel better, my laptop is so old, that none of my upper number keys work, so I cannot type exclamation points or at symbols, etc. anymore.9 ~ Lhynard (talk) 05:17, March 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course we need you! Deciding on a new background image and deciding crunch policy, to name just two issues :) Hurry back. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 12:13, March 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what OS you use, but you can easily access Slack via methods other than a browser. For example, via a terminal, using something such as slack-term. It's very quick.
 * ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:59, March 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * As Moviesign said, you are much needed and missed - hurry back! Ruf (talk) 20:03, March 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello BadCatMan,


 * I can only repeat what the others said. Please return soon.


 * Best regards


 * Saya222 (talk) 20:52, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Good news, everybody! My computer has now finally completely died, with its second power supply carking it, so now I really have to get a new computer. :/ Unfortunately, I have to work on my mum's laptop for a while, and everything's going to be a struggle until I get a replacement. I'll load Slack on here at some point, but expect to see even less of me. :( — BadCatMan (talk) 14:15, March 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * You might want to look into a UPS or a power filter, just sayin'. We are counting the days until your triumphant return. :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:51, March 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Replies with *flex* emoji^ Ruf (talk) 15:11, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

Another nitpick about the Underdark article + April Fools Joke
The article says the Underdark is under the surface of Abeir-Toril.

If I understand correctly, Abeir-Toril was a planet that was split into two planets: Abeir and Toril.

Shouldn't the article say that the Underdark is under the surface of Toril?

-

The April Fools Joke wasn't funny at all.

Now, the one I told my mother this morning, that one was funny.

"Hey! There's another cat out on the deck!"

For some reason, she didn't think it was funny. – User:Gringo300


 * In older sourcebooks, "Abeir-Toril" (a single phrase meaning "cradle of life") was the proper name of the planet we commonly know as "Toril". It was that way until 4th edition retconned Abeir into being. But it is still valid to refer to Toril as Abeir-Toril, there's nothing wrong with that.


 * April Fool's Day is not about making jokes. It's about making pranks that people tend to find amusing, and I think we did that. As for your joke, I think you forgot the punchline. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:06, April 2, 2019 (UTC)

Zhoukoudien
Hello BadCatMan! A small thing about the Zhoukoudien article: The last sentence is unclear to me. Is there perhaps a noun missing or something? Daranios (talk) 20:14, May 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I missed a word again, "name". Thanks for pointing it out. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:33, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Dragonborn piercings
Hi! I'm back here, and happy to help. I wanted to ask about this. A few months ago, Erin M. Evans shared with me these diagrams on Twitter. They show the different piercings used by the dragonborn to show their clans allegiances in her novels. While she says that these are not canonical, save for the ones of clans Linxakasendalor and Tlassian, all piercings match their canonical descriptions in the novels (both hers and the ones by Richard Lee Byers). Do you think we should share these images here in the wiki? (with proper permission, of course). --Zero (talk) 21:37, May 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * As they are expressly non-canon (and have non-canonical elements), and the diagram isn't very clear, and we don't as a rule accept the homebrew of authors, I'd say no, we shouldn't share them on the wiki. However, you're welcome to link to them via footnote as an interesting extra. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:39, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms Wiki dump file
Greetings!

I apologize if this is the wrong way to go about asking questions. I've only read articles on here in the past and have never been involved in the creation of them, so please forgive me if this is the incorrect way to do things.

I'm working on a programming project, and I would like to create a vector model of all the words in all of the articles listed on the Forgotten Realms Wiki. I've done the same thing for the actual english wikipedia, and I would like to do the same with a more specific (and very beloved) wiki. The vector model allows you to enter any word, and then find other words that are contextually similar to that word, on and on. It's a really cool way to traverse language, and I would love to be able to do that with the Forgotten Realms.

In order to create the model, I need to input a wiki dump file. Does the Forgotten Realms Wiki keep dump files? And if so, would it be alright for me to download it for this project?

Thank you much! And thank you as well for all of your contributions to this amazing info source : )

asciimancer


 * You can ask any of the admins questions on their Talk pages, it's what they're there for!


 * I've been curious about that sort of thing myself, as well as maps of pages and links. I'm a technical editor, so I've become interested in language and how it works and relates. Do you have your work available online?


 * FANDOM/Wikia provides database dumps for all of its wikis. You can get the FRW's at the bottom of Special:Statistics in a zipped .xml file. The "see" link has some help details. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:33, June 3, 2019 (UTC)

Vegepygmy
Hey it's me again. Vegepygmy guy from before. I appreciate your help but I still don't quite grasp how you added the Vegepygmy ecology part to the page. You added it to the list at the bottom and I can't figure out how to do that. I need to for a few articles in future. So I ask for a kind of step by step guide so that I won't need to keep asking incessantly. Thanks

Vegepygmy (talk) 17:45, June 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I might not be explaining very well, I haven't gotten much sleep. The others have linked you to my first explanation. It does look like you're getting the hang of it though. I've followed up on your last edit to add page numbers and simplify and tidy the ref tags; see here.


 * I don't think I added anything to the bottom of the page, but down there in the Appendix you'll see the Appearances, Further Reading, and References subsections. Under Appearances are just simple links to those pages. Under Further Reading is a call to the citation template for "Ecology of the Vegepygmy"; that's unrelated to anything. Under References should be nothing but, a widget that displays everything within HTML tags in the main text of the article. You don't need to add anything down there. You just need to make sure that ref tags that display Cite templates (as I explained yesterday) appear at appropriate points in the main text of the article: at the ends of paragraphs, after sentences, even after individual words if necessary. Simply put, there are these three steps:


 * , which calls a Template page at Template:Cite dungeon/201/Ecology of the Vegepygmy. Most of these have already been created, you just need to find them at Category:Citation templates (or start typing and see what's suggested. Then add page numbers after a bar, like so or
 * Then you wrap it in ref tags, e.g., . Make sure that sits immediately after the text this is a reference for.
 * If you want to reuse it later, just use instead.
 * will automatically display all the ref tags and their templates for you.


 * My best advice though is to find a short page that works, and read through the source code via the Source Editor to see how the wiki markup works. And when you see other editors make an edit, check out the change (clicking diff, cur, or prev in Special:RecentChanges or choosing History from the drop-down menu next to the Edit button, to see what can be done. We've all started by making errors and stumbling over the code then learning by doing and watching. If something still doesn't work for you, make a note in the edit summary and someone will come by to check and fix it. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:36, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

Ello again. I was wondering something about the Death Tyrant. Previous versions seem to just be the Beholder Zombie. Even the name 'Death Tyrant' suggests an intelligent despot which its previous descriptions weren't Old Death Tyrants are literally just the Beholder Zombie before the Beholder Zombie was a proper thing. Should I use the description for those old Death Tyrants in Beholder Zombie?


 * I don't know much about beholders, death tyrant, zombie, or otherwise, but they seem to be different enough (one a minor mindless fleshy undead; the other a powerful intelligent skeleton like a lich) that it would be worthwhile keeping them separate for clarity. Merging creatures when they don't need to be merged can cause a lot of confusion later (more than usual when comparing creatures across editions). — BadCatMan (talk) 12:41, June 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah but past editions when talking about the Death Tyrant describe it like the zombie. With them being mindless undead with eyestalks etc.


 * This is a complicated issue. Death tyrants and beholder zombies seem to be very entangled throughout the editions. The death tyrants of 2-edition come in two varieties―one under control of a master, another completely independent―but both are definitely more intelligent than mere zombies. The 3-edition death tyrants are more zombie-like, but also retain some semblance of intelligence. It was only in 5 edition that the distinction actually forked into two creatures. I would say that all previous editions refer to the death tyrant proper (there could be more variants than just the subset presented in 5e; beholders have a huge variance), since the beholder zombie of 5e is a considerably weaker creature. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 16:12, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

Who's watching the writers?
That's a pun if you're wondering. Anyway, I had another problem related to the Beholders. Apparently being famous isn't so good for keeping consistent. Long story short, older versions describe beholders as being hermaphrodites like Illithids (too scared to breed with others) who give birth live and eat any imperfect young. Volo describes many beholders as coming from the brains of others. This is more a general issue with beholder lore in general since I remember Death Kiss being described as mutants (although that's less of a problem). Another from Eberron has them as the specific servants of some wizard guy but I'm honestly ignoring that. Point being is that I was wondering if I should use one or the other, or both.


 * The creation & procreation stories of many monsters have changed with each edition and campaign setting, especially in 5th edition. As per our canon policy, the FRW treats lore from the most recent source with the most relevance to the Realms as the primary version, but also retains any older versions for the interest of readers (who may prefer the older version or treat one version as myth, one as reality).


 * In this case, you would try to present the older lore and the recent lore together, and clarify them by saying, for example, "Older stories said X, but more recent accounts reported Y." Eberron is not the Realms, so we ignore that completely. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:23, June 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * I would even suggest that in the case of Volo, you give his name explicitly, saying, "Earlier scholars said blah, blah, blah; Volo, however, presented an alternative theory: blah, blah." The thing is that, canonically, Volo is known to be an unreliable narrator. Elminister was constantly correcting his assertions in his guides. This allows DMs the freedom to say, "I think that the new lore is dumb; the old lore is better; Volo must be wrong." ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:33, June 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * I think in this case, I'll say that both can work. The Great Mother god was known to be this constantly form shifting elder abomination so I wouldn't say the dreaming them into being thing is impossible. Also other ones like the Gazer have been made before. So depending on the topic I'll try to blend the two together or say that both could maybe work.
 * Vegepygmy (talk) 20:38, June 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, great. Just try to make sure any interpretation you need to make accurately reflects the lore, without putting any new spins on things. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:05, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Oryndoll Thrall Caverns
Thanks for copy-editing the page. I was not aware that there was a new location infobox. I will spread the new info box to the other locations as well as the upcoming ones. Gem Hound (talk) 13:06, June 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My practice is to always copy from the template page. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:05, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * So I was looking up the Out of the Abyss reference on the Bulette page, and I can't seem to find where it mentions that Dwarves call the creatures Ghohlbrorn/Gohlbrorn. Every source I have found on the creatures so far has only called Gohlbrorn a cousin of the Bulette. Nevermind, I found the reference 4 pages out. That means we have a contradiction, because all the pre-5e references to Ghohlbrorn/Gohlbrorn including Forgotten Realms references mark them as a unique creature that is only a cousin to the bulette. I'm actually looking at a picture right now and they kind of look like turtles rather than sharks. Gem Hound (talk) 08:30, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no contradiction here. Out of the Abyss says only that "ghohlbrorn" is the Dwarvish word for the bulette, not that the gohlbrorn is the same as a bulette. All we can say is that the dwarves call both bulettes and gohlbrorn by the same word, ghohlbrorn (we might distinguish by spelling, 'go-' for the creature, 'gho-' for the word and both creatures). As they probably would, if they think they're closely related creatures.


 * What sources have you found for the gohlbrorn creature? They appeared in Dragon Magazine Annual 1996 and Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Four, but that's non-Realms-specific. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:09, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * They also appear in Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark. The illithid of Oryndoll have 12 gohlbrorn that they psionically dominate. It is specifically stated there that they are cousins of the bulette. Here is a screenshot of the text on page 80:
 * https://i.gyazo.com/2ca7dd822798b1f68a2c3adfe8974f68.png
 * Gem Hound (talk) 09:53, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits again. When I'm finished work I'll fix the skull cup as well as the page I drew the formatting for the bonethriven from since the name of the instrument is also italicized there. Then I'll copy the editted infobox over, since prior to that edit the only template I knew about involved Volo's rating.Gem Hound (talk) 13:32, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. By the way, you don't have to ask me – for issues specific to an article, please use the Talk page attached to that article. That way, other people are welcome to help you, as I can't solve all lore issues off the top of my head or in my limited free time. — BadCatMan (talk) 15:10, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh. I came to you because you added the reference that to me was supplying the confusing information. Anyway, since you fixed most of the the pages I was going to I'll keep on adding info when I get home.Gem Hound (talk) 16:04, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh. I don't remember doing that. Or adding it to Dwarvish. But there it is in the revision history... Ah. At Talk:Dwarvish dictionary, User:Jacktoland wanted to add the word so I showed how, then added it to bulette. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:52, June 23, 2019 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom again, but still use this as it is a related question. How would I record that an item was supplied to soldiers in a military force? I used "Notable Users" but that feels wrong since they are not notable.Gem Hound (talk) 03:16, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

Also a second question. How would I describe an item that does different things at different levels of an ability score without the crunch? Gem Hound (talk) 04:59, June 24, 2019 (UTC)


 * The section headings are recommendations, not strict, and others are possible. You could called a sections Users or Usage, and write something like "Members of X used these...".


 * You might say "For users with low intelligence, it did nothing. For users with above-average intelligence, it did..." But how you describe it would depend on the item and what it does. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:17, June 24, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll do that.


 * Okay. As the item I'm working on does different things for 12 and under int, 13 to 14 int, 15 to 16 int, 17 to 18 int, 19+ int for generic ones, though specially crafted items can do even more stuff at higher intelligence. Gem Hound (talk) 05:26, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

Another question - is there a specific template I would use for a proxy of a god, or would the god one work? I'm going to add in Lugribossk once this current string of linked items is completed.Gem Hound (talk) 05:19, June 25, 2019 (UTC) Or would it be a creature because it is not an avatar?Gem Hound (talk) 05:23, June 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * The Deity template should be used for gods, demigods, and the big planar bosses who get worshiped. Since a proxy is sometimes said to be a demigod themselves, you could use Deity. Or, if that doesn't feel appropriate, then just use Person. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:30, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

Dragon Magazine
Just checking but the Dragon Magazines are canon right? Or at least limited canon?

Vegepygmy (talk) 01:57, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * They're canon, but lore in published books takes precedence over lore in magazines where they come into conflict. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:05, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Ok related question. Another magazine( for the spectator )mentioned a bunch of stuff. It also mentioned a god of time from Greyhawks, who could summon them, and some lived on his plane. It also mentioned Mechanus. Can I use it? It's magazine 93?


 * No, we try not to cover any more Greyhawk lore than we need to. We focus on FR lore and creatures that appear in the Realms. So, for spectators, you would only discuss where they appear in the Realms, which Realms gods used them. If there's general information about Mechanus, that would be fine, but it couldn't be specific to a non-Realms subject. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:52, June 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Would it be fine to use the rest as it pertains to general lore? Like stuff that isn't about the greyhawk deity?
 * Vegepygmy (talk) 23:15, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, general lore is fine. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:41, June 23, 2019 (UTC)

Bloodkiss
Hey. I can't find any info about the Bloodkiss beholder in forgotten realms. Similar issue to my searechter page (except I didn't make this one). Should it be deleted unless stuff about them is published in future?

Vegepygmy (talk) 02:27, June 24, 2019 (UTC)


 * While I believe the FRW doesn't need it, and you probably shouldn't have bothered adding to it, we have it now, it doesn't harm the wiki, and it doesn't need to be deleted. They might turn up in some source, or someone might want to read about them. So, I just tag it with Unrelated and leave it. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:34, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

Should there be articles for things like Champion, Archer or Archdruid?

Vegepygmy (talk) 00:32, June 26, 2019 (UTC)


 * If they're classes and have a presence in the Realms, then sure. If they're aspects of the main classes like fighter, then they should probably be squeezed into those articles. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:39, June 26, 2019 (UTC)

They aren't classes they're technically monsters. Or Npcs. But they are things that other monsters become. Like a minotaur or orc champion or an elf archdruid not actual monsters. Also side note. Is ravenloft stuff canon here? Like 2E werebat? Vegepygmy (talk) 00:56, June 26, 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume you're talking about 5th edition? I'd say no, they're just stock, unnamed NPCs that don't need to be on the wiki. Actual named NPCs might have these templates, but they don't really need to be detailed separately.


 * Ravenloft lore can be included only if directly relates to the Realms, like things from Ravenloft entering the Realms or Realms things appearing Ravenloft. If the werebat matches typical depictions of werebats (and we have werebats in the Realms), and isn't some funky Ravenloft-only monster (they exist), then it would be fine. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:59, June 26, 2019 (UTC)

So question. The Kuo Toa god Blipdolboop. Some sources claim that she's some ancient being, but others say the Kuo Toa dreamed her up in such a way she came into exsistence. Is their a stance on this? Vegepygmy (talk) 20:49, July 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * The designers' stance is basically that the most recent thing they said is the right one, until they say something different. The FRW's stance is that everything is valid for inclusion here, until say what's right is up to the reader. For Blibdoolpoolp, you'd write basically what you just said and try to clarify these sources in-universe, e.g., "Early sources, mainly the kuo-toa themselves, believed that she was an ancient deity, but it was later believed, by non-kuo-toa, they they'd simply dreamed up her up much more recently." — BadCatMan (talk) 01:15, July 3, 2019 (UTC)

I believe I fixed troglodyte.

Vegepygmy (talk) 16:53, July 3, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello! Thanks for your recent update on my post regarding Cragmaw Hideout! I would like to help with the development of Cragmaw tripe and new leader etc. I am new to Wiki as I am sure you can tell. I am an avid D & D guy since the 1970's and think I can offer much assistance. I am weak in the citation department and proper format used on wiki. Any help you would or could provide would be great.

DM Enterprises (User:Johnkyff)


 * Hi! Sorry I couldn't respond to you yesterday, I was very busy with work. Anyway, welcome to the wiki. If you need help with anything, just check revisions to pages, see what other people do, and ask anyone for help.


 * I recently explained how to do references to Vegepygmy, so if you just look up this page to User_talk:BadCatMan, you'll see a detailed explanation of how they work.


 * I went over Grol and fixed it up, adding the Person infobox, formatted the page, added references, and categories. Take a look at the revision history to see how various things work.


 * BTW, we strongly suggest not using the VisualEditor. It doesn't work at all with our citations and references, which may be what tripped you up. Use the Source Editor (accessed via the drop-down menu next to the Edit button, or it can be set as a default in Preferences) to see how the wiki markup code words. That's the best way of learning it without having issues. — BadCatMan (talk) 10:50, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello,

Hey thanks for all of your help! I read the topics you suggested. Thanks Again. I am still very ignorant about citations, references etc. If you could edit my pages adding what I need to do I may be able to get the process. I will not add picture at this time. I have been developing maps with added paths that would be in obvious places though. I think my creative writing skills will be a great help to this wonderful source for the Forgotten Realms. I know you are busy with your own stuff but when you say "citation needed" I have no Idea what to put there. So far everything you have edited has been superb and greatly appreciated! I have Skype and live on the East Cost of the USA in Virginia. Any communication in any form is appreciated. I will sick with the Cragmaw tribe for now.

Cheers,

--Johnkyff (talk) 12:27, July 8, 2019 (UTC)John Kyff

Ao
So this is less of a question of facts and just more of asking your opinion.

Since Ao is in charge of the entire universe does that mean that the battle of good and evil and law and chaos in forgotten realms is basically unwinnable? That even if a bunch of evil deities died he'd just put them all back or make some more. Cause that really removes the tension from the whole battle for good and evil situation or at least takes out the stakes.


 * I don't think so. Ao is not really in charge of anything, he just ensures the gods play by the rules and things don't get out of hand. He would stop any one god forcing their vision on existence, but that doesn't preclude an overall victory for goodness as a whole. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:15, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

Two
So two questions.

There are two variations of the Umber Hulk, Psi hulk and shadow hulk. Do they deserve their own pages or should I just put it in the main UH page.

Should I move the Brainstealer Dragon's page to Ebberon Wiki since it's only mentioned in the magazine in that setting. I'd just take all the code and move it over since it doesn't seem important and leave out the end bit about scourges.

This is me by the way

Vegepygmy (talk) 21:49, July 15, 2019 (UTC)

One more question. Myconids in 4th edition were revamped as from the fomorian pollution but their behavior before and after that edition completely contradicts that. I don't know how to remedy a change that only lasted one edition.


 * Umber hulks: That depends on how much lore and detail there is. If it's just a minor variant, you might just add it to a subsection on the main umber hulk page. If it's a significant variation and has a lot of separate lore attached, it might be better off as a separate page. That's only if they're in the Realms; if not, we don't have to have them. Where are umber hulk variants presented?


 * Brainstealer dragon: That's a bit of a bugbear for me. I agree, we don't need the page, but it seems to be popular. In any case, you're welcome to use the text to create a page on the Eberron Wiki, which needs some love.


 * Myconids: 4e is usually the problem, yeah. :) If you want to cover them, and feel it necessary for Realms coverage, then you could just provide the proper context and qualifiers. For example, "Between the Spellplague of 1385 DR and the Second Sundering of the 1480s, some myconids were polluted by fomorian madness and become highly expansionist. They exhibited traits of..." That tells the reader it's post-Spellplague/4e lore, so they may choose to ignore it. It revises what might have been all myconids to some myconids, so it doesn't cancel past or future versions, and then any 4e myconids seen in 4e sources are these affected myconids, while other myconids may not have been affected. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:53, July 16, 2019 (UTC)

Expedition to the Undermountain


 * What about it? Expedition to Undermountain is an official Forgotten Reams adventure module, it is a valid source for the wiki. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:19, July 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * I was reading it but noticed that it said that it wasn't FR specific but went back and saw it was for everything and felt silly,

Statues
Thank you for helping format the posts I made, I've never posted onto a wiki before and I appreciate you making everything line up properly. Badpwnies (talk) 21:33, July 17, 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries! You made a good start. :) — BadCatMan (talk) 05:45, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

Banderhobb
I accidently messed up the name of a monster called the Banderhobb. The actual name was Banderhobb Filch but I can't fix the name, so I reuploaded it under the proper name. Please delete the original.


 * Okay, will do. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:45, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

Meazel
So I asked this a long time ago before putting it away for later. Should the Meazel page just be split into two, left as one or should the shadow version just be removed?

If the second one then I will attempt to mend them. Nothing is said of their origins outside of 5e so I might just say that some travel so far underground that they enter the Shadowdark. Asking for final opinion.

Vegepygmy (talk) 03:31, July 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * I know I've already answered on this somewhere, but can't recall where now. Anyway, I'd say leave meazel as a single page; IIRC, the 5e version isn't all that different from earlier versions. Just clarify any differences with a date (e.g., "In the 14 century DR, meazels were believed to... However, in the late 15 century, meazels...") or locations ("...but meazels in the Shadowdark were..."). Don't make any assumptions about how they got there, only report what is stated in the sourcebooks.


 * By the way, please do feel free to use the Talk pages on individual monster articles to discuss issues like these. They're open to everyone, whereas User Talk pages are more one-on-one. I actually don't know much about all these monsters, but other editors may know of some lore that resolves an issue. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:08, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

Thoon
So I would put this in the talk page but this seems more rules based. Monster manual V 3rd edition has a lot of information about thoon's followers and the monsters that mind flayers of thoon create. Should they just go into the thoon page or do they get individual pieces.

Vegepygmy (talk) 16:25, July 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say you don't need to add Thoon mind flayers at all. It's an optional, campaign-specific storyline confined to Monster Manual V, what Thoon actually is left undefined, and whether any of the Thoon monsters actually appear in the Realms is unknown. So it's impossible to say whether any of it is valid for the wiki. Any articles made for the monsters would be tagged as Unrelated, so we don't actually need them.


 * The only thing that could be added is the Realmslore in the "Thoon in Faerûn" paragraph on page 125, but you don't need to link to Thoon or quintessence, create pages for any Thoon monsters. All we'd need to say is that there's a small cult of mind flayers who left Oryndoll and follow something called "Thoon", make a footnote explaining there's more in MMV, and leave it at that. They haven't advanced enough to create any of the Thoon monsters. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:49, July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Okey. I'll probably just mention the quintessence and that they have specialized monsters but no more than that. Just some essential stuff. Although I do know one of their monsters is from the Far Realm so I don't know if I should bring that one up. Anyway would have added this earlier but I only just found it. Is the Illithiad a valid source too or no? I have trouble discerning whether or not sources are allowed if they don't specifically mention the Forgotten Realms. Vegepygmy (talk) 02:53, July 23, 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't even have to mention the monsters, because they probably haven't made any, and none of them can be confirmed to exist in the Realms.


 * The Illithiad may be valid, but only general illithid lore that would apply to illithids on Toril and in Realmspace, and of course any specific references to the Realms that might appear in the book. For example, the bonethriven article uses information from The Illithiad to back up its appearance in the Realms.


 * But really, you don't have to add anything. We see a lot of new editors go hard, add a lot of stuff, then seemingly burn out and disappear. I recommend slowing down, taking this easy, and focusing on getting everything right rather than rushing it out. We prefer quality over quantity. Your articles tend to miss a few citations or make various other errors or unnecessary additions, and the volume of your work makes it very hard for the rest of us to fix things up after you. So please, just relax, this is a hobby, not a job. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:38, July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I notice I tend to mess stuff up. Been trying to fix that. The Boggle article seems to have gone swimmingly. But yeah I think I'll slow down.

Vegepygmy (talk) 13:09, July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Mongrel
Could you check the mongrelmen page to see if it's fixed.

Vegepygmy (talk) 13:56, July 26, 2019 (UTC)

Demon Editor
As you might have noticed I've been going through some of the demon pages and sprucing them up a bit. I've noticed that a lot of the pieces were stolen word for word.

"Unlike that of most other demons, bar-lguras’ teleport ability was not limited to just themselves, so bar-lguras used this ability to grab foes and teleport them to prisons or sealed caverns, leaving them there for as long as they wish."

This was a copy from the Book of Vile Darkness. Maybe the person who did it just left it for later and forgot but I just thought I'd point it out since plagirism is a no-no. Vegepygmy (talk) 06:30, August 1, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we try to remove copied text wherever we find it. If you find any, please remove or rewrite and say why in the edit summary so others know. If you can't tag, place Plagiarism at the top of the page so others know and can remove it. That will put the page in a category of copied pages.


 * Where did you find this copied text about bar-lguras? I don't see it on the barlgura page. — BadCatMan (talk) 07:03, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh right. Sorry wrong one. In truth I can't quite recall at this point because the sentences were all so short. But I'm editting barlgura anyway so it hardly matters for now.

added a question
Convention content isn't Canon?? I had no idea!

I read the Novel "Death Masks" and it contradicts Tome of Foes and other 5e sourcebooks. In addition to the fact that mind reading and raising from the dead in any way shape or form is banned by Mystra. No one is resurrected or raised from the dead anymore. Are the Novels also not canon?

Reference: Chapter 28 " There are limits. El[minster] warned faintly. No bringing back from death. Mystra now reserves that for herself.

SamRojgar (talk) 05:52, August 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's created by convention organizers and given a seal of approval by WotC, but not entirely canon, and we've decided not to include CCC stuff on the wiki.


 * I haven't read Death Masks, so I don't know the context for that statement, nor do I know the 5e rules. The novels are canon and valid for the wiki, but contradictions and changes with each edition will crop up all the time.


 * BTW, I edited The Hexad to include an Organization infobox, Quote, a cite template, and the necessary formatting. We strongly recommend using the Source Editor to work with the basic wiki markup code, as most features don't work with the default Visual Editor. Have a look now. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:31, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thanks a lot BadCatMan! --SamRojgar (talk) 07:05, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

Mild confusion
So slight question about 4e. I know it's sorta the red headed stepchild so to speak of the dnd editions but I was wondering something. When you fixed my Umber Hulk thing you kept the basic premise but removed the different versions. If they are just supposed to be split I get that but the other potential hulk types got removed. Are special monsters from 4e not allowed. I'm having trouble telling what parts of it I'm allowed to use and what I can't. I'm messing with the nalfeshnee page and I can't figure out if I should bring up their creator thing. Just hope I can clear this up.

Vegepygmy (talk) 04:06, August 9, 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it was too hard to fix, frankly.


 * First, when you added the 4e MM3 lore, you wrapped it around the bit from Lords of Madness, which falsely cited the 4e backstory to the 3e sourcebook. Please make sure that every bit of lore is given the correct reference. Otherwise, it confuses people who need to check the sources of the lore. Information that can't be sourced can be removed.


 * Second, you also invented a bit of information about how "original" umber hulks have the 4e backstory, while "current" umber hulks have the 3e backstory. That's not true. There are no original and modern umber hulks. What we have are two different possible backstories. Don't try to link them, just tell two separate accounts.


 * Third, you mashed the 4e variant umber hulks into the history section, discussing their activities and powers, which confuses everything. For subraces (especially given how many As 4e spews out), it would be better to put them in a separate subrace section, so the reader can choose to read, skim, or ignore them. 4e lore is usually an optional extra.


 * After I fixed up the first two issues, fixing the third was too much and it seemed easier to remove than repair. Working on a wiki doesn't pay and it takes longer for a second editor to fix up something than it would take a first editor to do it right in the first place. So it was a judgement call; as it wasn't Realmslore, it didn't need to be kept or have more time spent on it.


 * So, please try to focus your discussion on what a section is about, e.g., only talk about history in History, and just report the conflicts, don't try to patch them. Furthermore, you tend to write a lot. Keep it simple, straightforward, and to the point. A lot of people won't wade through all that text; I find it time-consuming. A good rule of thumb is to try to not write much more than the passage in the sourcebook you took it from. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:59, August 9, 2019 (UTC)

By the way "Nalfeshnees are devastating in combat, using their wings to soar above the front ranks and reach vulnerable adversaries that can be dispatched with little effort From the thick of battle, they telepathically bellow commands to lesser demons, even as they inspire a sense of dread that forces their foes to scatter and run." From both nalfeshnee page and monster manual. Found the Copy paste thing.Vegepygmy (talk) 23:00, August 9, 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Please don't add anything more to Nalfeshnee for now, I'll go through later and check the page and history and remove what's copied and try to clean it up. — BadCatMan (talk) 23:55, August 9, 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, I still don't know what you are talking about. That passage does not appear in the nalfeshnee article and never did. It had copied text from the 3.5 MM in the past, but it was cleaned up some time ago.


 * That text you quoted is from the 5e MM. It's copied at the D&D Wiki, but that's nothing to do with us. It's also SRD content, so many other sites are allowed to show it. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:53, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's right there in the abilities section copy pasted. I can still see it right there. Hang on I'm sending a picture. Just check the photo log and you'll see it.
 * Vegepygmy (talk) 01:03, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * Vegepygmy (talk) 01:03, August 10, 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't bother, I've seen it now—it was you who added it. I don't know what you're trying to do, or why, but do not add copied text to articles, no matter what its source. I've blocked you for a month to think about this. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:21, August 10, 2019 (UTC)


 * We've checked a few articles and haven't found any more copied text, so I've lifted your block. I would really like to hear your explanation, however. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:36, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for unblocking me. This was a result of my carelessness. Rather than just keep flitting between tabs I normally grab all relevent information for a block, like say description or personality, and cut it up into the base parts and removing the repitition. Then I take the information and try to put it together comprehesively. I created an ability tab for the nalfeshnee because part of it was more centered in powers than combat. I left it alone for a while after that cause I had gotten busy with other stuff and had forgotten I left the copy paste so when I came back I submitted it thinking I'd complete the other half later on, forgetting the copied text was there. Then I saw the copy text and in my haste told you without realizing it was me who put it there in the first place. I'm sorry to have bugged you about something that was completely my fault and I'll pay more attention when I'm editting in future. Vegepygmy (talk) 21:49, August 12, 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for explaining. I do something similar, by copying text to a Word document and dividing it up by topic, to help me arrange and compile the information to discuss. I also colour-code the text and keep the copied stuff on dot points, so I can easily distinguish it and remove it later. Perhaps a similar approach would work for you.


 * I have to say again, problems like this and the mixed-up references we've found seem to result from rushing things. It appears to take you only a day or less to make one of your big "updates" to each monster, whereas other editors would work with much less (a lesser-known monster from a single sourcebook) in the same time or spread as much work over several days or more than a week. For example, I did succubus over the course of a month, very carefully distinguishing between different versions, arranging the information, writing only a paragraph or so at a time, and ensuring everything was correctly cited, around my real-world life and managing other aspects of the wiki. I'd probably spend that long doing nalfeshnee.


 * Being able to pump out a massive amount of content isn't necessarily a good thing, if it's missing references or incorrect references, contains errors in information or language, or mistakenly includes copied text. As we see, that just makes problems for other editors and confuses readers. We prefer quality over quantity. From long experience, I've seen plenty of new editors do that, burn out, and disappear, usually leaving unfinished work behind them. So, once again, please try to slow down, take it easy, and do only a little bit at a time. One approach you might try is to only do 5th-edition lore, which people tend to want, and don't worry about integrating 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition lore at this stage. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:13, August 13, 2019 (UTC)
 * Was doing that now (since yesterday really) actually. The Uridezu page since it's short and I only need to mend 2 sources. But yeah I think I'll do less superfluous monsters for a bit. Vegepygmy (talk) 22:05, August 13, 2019 (UTC)
 * Was doing that now (since yesterday really) actually. The Uridezu page since it's short and I only need to mend 2 sources. But yeah I think I'll do less superfluous monsters for a bit. Vegepygmy (talk) 22:05, August 13, 2019 (UTC)