User talk:Coswig

Salvatore articles
You've done some really comprehensive and well-referenced work on those Salvatore articles lately Coswig. Just want to say well done and thank you for your efforts. Even though articles like Drizzt, Menzoberranzan, Bruenor and Mithral Hall detail the settings most popular areas they have always needed a lot of work, it's good to see someone helping out with them.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 19:31, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've found myself with some unexpected downtime lately and am working on my "research" skills ;) --Coswig (talk) 20:15, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Fantastic work, Cos :) - Darkwynters (talk) 18:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Lady Penitent
Hey Coswig, I was wondering if you've read the Lady Penitent series? It's follows on from the events of War of the Spider Queen and details Halisstra Melarn's servitude to Lolth. You've done such great work with all the War of the Spider Queen stuff that I thought you might decide to tackle that series next.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 16:57, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * It's on my list. I want to finish up the stuff from War of the Spider Queen first, then I'll go check it out. Thanks for the suggestion! -Coswig (talk) 20:16, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for category fixes
You are great. Thanks for the Category:Members of House Baenre and Category:Members of House Do'Urden fixes, among others! —Coswig (talk) 03:09, April 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cos... You just made my day. Awesome work on ALL your pages, BTW... Totally proves you are a Realms expert and a proficient wiki editor :) - Darkwynters (talk) 23:40, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Homeland
Hey Cos, it is not a big deal, but I noticed you completely changed all my "index" edits on the Homeland page... I was following the guidelines created by High admin BadCat and also the same set up as in the Featured articles City of the Spider Queen and Dungeon magazine 75... I believe BadCat used the bullets to make the pages shorter and more organized... just check out those articles... thanks :) - Darkwynters (talk) 05:24, February 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * Mainly I was adding a few missing things. The formatting would be easy enough to fix. However, I think the bullets are a very awkward format, particularly with long pages and with footnotes. Using the bullets that way does save space and look nice, I guess, but it's not very user-friendly and I'm not sure space is an issue on a webpage.... Is there a place we can get others' feedback on this? Also, if that template in fact the desired standard, it would be great to put it in Template:Book for easy reference :) --Coswig (talk) 20:51, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

No big deal... though, you removed all my page references... I guess I am bummed about that. Either way we format the book pages is cool as long as it is consistent... - Darkwynters (talk) 23:42, February 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, I can put the refs back (though I don't think they're strictly necessary, I suppose they could be helpful sometimes), but in that case I think the page should definitely be left in a vertical format -- the refs and bullets certainly gave me headaches together, so I suppose I went overboard getting rid of all of them. Sorry. --Coswig (talk) 04:43, February 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * All refs restored, plus a bunch of new ones. --Coswig (talk) 05:27, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks, Cos :) - Darkwynters (talk) 05:48, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Wanted Pages
Thank you for the recent articles you created from scratch off the wanted articles list! ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:35, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

Spiderkind Clarification
Which spiders are not considered spiderkind? From what I can tell, every spider ever published in the FR setting is listed on p. 30 of Underdark. Monstrous spiders and even spider swarm is included on the list, and a spider swarm is simply a swarm of normal, non-monstrous spiders, which would further confirm the intent that the grouping includes all spiders and spider-like creatures.

~ Lhynard (talk) 19:35, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: It's been great to see you writing so many new articles, by the way.


 * You're right. It was just a misunderstanding on my part. I did go back and fix it though! --Coswig (talk) 05:45, May 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw, thanks. You also went and expanded scrag into a great FR article. Good work! ~ Lhynard (talk) 12:42, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Creature Classifications
Before you go crazy with the categories, please look at Forum:Categorization system for creatures where we discussed the climate and terrain types that we want to use. Specifically note that "mountains" was split into "low mountains" and "high mountains" in 3rd edition. So if you have a creature that is found in "mountainous" terrain, would you please put it into both the high and low categories? I will investigate whether we need the Category:Creatures found in mountains category or not. Ultimately, we would like all creatures to be categorized so they show up in one (or more) of the links on Creatures by climate and terrain. Thanks! &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 12:13, July 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * I did take a look at it, thanks for pointing it. I didn't read all of it -- mostly just the stuff towards the end -- so if I'm missing anything else, please let me know.


 * I did see that mountains were split into low and high (under a main Category:Creatures found in mountains category, it appears to me), but the problem is that with the information I'm using, I don't know whether the creatures live in the high or low mountains. Quite honestly, I'm not quite sure what sources would make that kind of distinction, unless they referred specifically to mountain glaciers, but there's already a category for glaciers. In any case, even if a distinction was made, the creatures would certainly fall under both the parent category and the child category: Category:Creatures found in mountains and Category:Creatures found in low mountains (which as you can see, doesn't exist at this moment), etc. If we classify all mountain-dwelling creatures as living and high and low mountains, it's pointless to have the distinction anyway. So I really think that the mountain categories should be merged on Creatures by climate and terrain If there happens to be a distinction between high and low mountains for a creature, we have a separate category for that (not appearing on the chart at all and appearing only as a subcategory to Category:Creatures found in mountains, which is my vote; or appearing on the chart but as a subtype). --Coswig (talk) 15:51, July 18, 2015 (UTC)