Having problems with the external citation, don't know what I'm doing wrong, looked around, seems I'm good..but obviously not, heh. oops --Fizzygoo 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the referencing a bit. If you look here you can see the changes. I'm not a 100% but the real-world content and references to non-canon (even non-D&D) pages most likely need to be deleted though. Johnnyriot999 00:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just was shocked to see the Drizzt entry listed him has having infravision (after all, infravision's been gone for around about 8 years now). That, and the version of the infravision article when I started re-working was talking about infravision in the present tense, when officially Drizzt (and all the other creatures out there) has darkvision. So in editing it, it felt like the only reason to include an article on "infravision" was to say "it used to be in the game, now it's gone, this is why," kind of thing. --Fizzygoo 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As we definetley still include materal from the 1st and 2nd edition D&D and Realms but not if it has been retconned or otherwise updated. The wiki does need an article on infravasion, and kudos for creating it, but citing real-world articles doesnt really help. But to mention real-world science like the "infrared spectrum" is a bit unnecessary as the page cited isn't canon. That's all really. Johnnyriot999 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. (Note, as I don't want to take credit for someone else's work. I didn't create the infravision page, only changed it to "past tense" and add the history/science of it as a game ability). I believe I have a canon source for why infravision was changed to darkvision, so when I get the chance, I'll replace the non-canon S. K. Reynolds link with the canon and over all re-work the page.

Merge? Edit

Should this page be merged into Darkvision? If the concept was retconned away, I don't get why it doesn't simply become an explanatory comment in the Darkvision article. It's extremely out-of-universe otherwise. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:53, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

There are some differences between darkvision and infravision, even if they are not very big. Most problematically, however: Some creatures with 2nd edition will get darkvision in 3rd edition, some low-light vision. So I tend towards keeping a separate article, though I do not feel to strongly about it. If the article feels too out-of-universe, my suggestion would be to describe infravision here as it is in 2nd edition and earlier, and relegate all references to darkvision and the different editions to a footnote. Daranios (talk) 20:11, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
I can see your point Daranios, but I think a merge would make sense. As long as 'infravision' remains as a redirect to 'darkivsion' then 2nd ed monsters can still add links to 'infravision'. A small note is all thats needed to explain the differences.
-Thomas Love Star_tiny.png [talk] 11:02, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
The arguments above notwithstanding: Sure, why not. To be perfectly edition-neutral, that would also mean, however, that an explanatory footnote would be necessary for each of those creatures, that have low-light vision in 3rd edition and infravision in earlier ones, like e.g. gnomes. No idea how many that would be. Daranios (talk) 11:18, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
I think we should write a comprehensive article that explains all types of vision in D&D and that way everything can redirect to it and folks can see the differences all in one place rather than on a per-article basis. Yes, it will be a little out-of-universe because it will be edition-specific, but that can be kept to a minimum. I know, I just volunteered to write such an article, but I can always hope someone else will beat me to it ;-) —Moviesign (talk) 13:31, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me! (Me not being the one to beat someone to creating it ;-) Daranios (talk) 15:31, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.