FANDOM


TimelineEdit

I was just looking through my old Arabian Adventures book... man, I had some good times playing my dwarven merchant-rogue... Does anyone know the Dale Reckoning timescale for Al-Qadim? Since most of Al-Qadim is 2nd edition... it probably is 1367 DR, just like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 2nd edition (revised). Ideas? Darkwynters (talk) 22:58, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Heh, what a bastard of a question to answer! This has been touched upon over at Candlekeep but the answer is that there is no canon source for timeline integration. So that sucks. I say we need to put this on the wiki's timeline, so I have an idea.
We can make a conclusion here on the wiki that it is 1367 DR as you say, since that's a logical conclusion to draw. Then, we can make a template that adds a footnote that explains that the timeline is non-canon and it's a decision we've made on the wiki. Then, each time an Al-Qadim article mentions a date, we just insert that template next to the date, and the footnote is automatically added. Does that sound reasonable?  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 00:19, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, FW :) Darkwynters (talk) 21:52, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to create such a template - so far without documentation. Please see it in action at Marrake al-Sidan al-Hariq ben Lazan. You need to manually insert <references group="note" /> at the bottom of the articles so far. Please change and improve if you have any other ideas. Daranios (talk) 15:17, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the <small> tags are really necessary. If there are other notes on the page, they will be in normal sized font, making the AQ-time note look out of place. Other than that, it looks good :) —Moviesign (talk) 17:26, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, the choice of 1367 DR for the Al-Qadim setting has been further discussed and affirmed at Forum:Complete Book of Necromancers Date. Daranios (talk) 21:55, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

Dragon #351Edit

To answer your question, according to rpg.net, Dragon #351 is 3.5 edition. —Moviesign (talk) 15:47, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! In addition to the edition I was also wondering: The two Dragon articles already under the 3.5E heading are clearly crunch, while this article title sounds a bit different. Is it more fluff or crunch? And if it is more fluff, should it matter? Daranios (talk) 15:58, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
I don't have issue #351, but from the very brief description at rpg.net, it is more fluff. —Moviesign (talk) 16:31, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
Then I personally would leave it where it is in the article until further notice. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 16:39, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
It's mostly fluff, but has some D&D 3.5 bits: NPCs are given the race/class/level lines, there's a few Survival checks, and there's a spell and a magic item. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:08, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Magazine Article Section ProposalEdit

I just found this! Very good idea.

I have a proposal on how to format it, it is below:

Dragon
Dungeon
Polyhedron

It uses the citation templates of the articles, and is sorted by publication. The ones without citation templates need to be created. Thoughts? --Regis87 (talk) 17:00, August 8, 2018 (UTC)

I like the division by publication. I'm kind of divided about the presentation of the indivdual articles: Using the citation templates would be the proper and complete way. But like this they take up quite some space (well, two lines for each entry at any rate), especially compared to the list of sourcebooks before. So I tend towards keeping something like the minimalistic format we have now, and whoever likes to know more can use the link to the magazine article.
Speaking of which: Thanks for creating all of those!
Are there other opinions out there? Daranios (talk) 17:37, August 9, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.