- Canon Discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms, users, Chosen of Mystra, Seven Sisters, etc, Redesign, hi!, Templates for References, Miscellaneous, Banner, Greetings, Merry Christmas, Citation templates, Games, Copyrighted Material, Spotlight, Online campaigns, Main Page Empty Space, Statistics, New Portal, Races & Items, Inhabitants, New Portal,
Page Archived
In case people missed tbe block above :P Zerak talk 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Spelling mistake
Just thought I'd mention that the main page has a typo. "Magic—How Magic works in the Fogotten Realms, be it arcane or divine in nature." This has a mistake in the word "Forgotten".
- Thanks for the headsup :) After looking at that page for god-knows how long I've become unable to spot such stuff Zerak talk 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikia template at Wikipedia - consolidating information, deletion pending, should-read
Hi,
There is a request for deletion on my proposal for consolidating information. The whole story there.
I copy my prose here, but please reply there, as it would be of no value here.
- I am the creator of the template and also the creator of the Wikiproject Forgotten Realms. Despite a considerable amount of work from me, I did not see much help from others (for the exception of one person who subsequently dropped). Meanwhile, a third-party project on Wikia gathered many people.
Now, I'm not feeling jealous for anything: I did my best, I'm happy with it, few people followed, no problem. What I'm concerned about is not me but my goal: a consolidated source of information. And what I see now is two concurrent project working without much dialog, a consequently a lot of redundancy and the necessity to check two sources for anyone interested in the Realms. Do you like to read the same information twice just to find the delta? Me neither. That's why I created this template. Now, as far as information is consolidated, I don't care much.
Bottom-line: delete if you want, but think about the ultimate goal when doing so: consolidating information.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)- At this point, I think the question of having all content ported to both FR Wiki and WP is just moot. The projects are of totally different scopes. Our wiki is inclusive and will have pages about the most obscure characters, while Wikipedia has been known to delete pages like Netheril on the premise that it is non-notable. And I agree with the WP mods that it is non-notable, from an Encyclopedia point of view - if pepople want to find obscure stuff, go to the specialists, ie. us. As for the banner/template, I can see how it could be percieved as spam by the WP community, and I think we'd be better off if it was just deleted. I know it wasn't your intention Latapie, but by making the banner in "our name" it has made it look like we are spamming/advertising on Wikipedia.
- In my eyes I'm happy with having the link from Wikipedia's Forgotten Realms page, and nowhere else. For anyone else looking for FR wiki, we can just hope we get some favorable rankings from Google :P (this message was also posted to Wikipedia) Zerak talk 08:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Go for Feature?
Looking at Featured Wikia I think we're more than elligible, and compared to other candidates, I think we have a good shot of being featured - is this something people would be interested in trying to go for? We could collaborate on writing the required info blurb, etc. For things to list off the top of my head; 2000+ articles, good usage of portals, extensive citations project, thourough citations, informative location/character templates etc. etc. :) We meet all criteria (easily), just needing to write the blurb. Zerak talk 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- A fantastic idea. I have started off the blurb at Forgotten Realms Wiki:Proposed blurb for featured wiki. It'd be great if everyone could have a look and incorporate what they want! Fw190a8 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- So what the status on this? Do you think the blurb is well enough to submit? Johnnyriot999 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- See the talk page - Zerak talk 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- So what the status on this? Do you think the blurb is well enough to submit? Johnnyriot999 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, missed that. Thanks. Johnnyriot999 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- We're up to 8 votes, with Legend of the Five Rings Wikia as the only candidate with more votes than us (12, against our 8), also we're currently tied with the Nonsensepedia Wikia (an Uncyclopedia-type project). In any case, the L5R wikia looks pretty decent, so I wouldn't be too bothered about losing out to them this month - we'd probably just get our shot next month. But let's see how things go.. :) Zerak talk 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Humbug, some wiki with no nomination nor vote was selected for the feature of July, seems those votes are just some joke on our expense *hrmph* Zerak talk 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- They were selected a few weeks ago (end of May w/around 13 votes) and were thus pulled from the nomination page. With our current # of votes I think we'll get September, possibly October. Johnnyriot999 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Humbug, some wiki with no nomination nor vote was selected for the feature of July, seems those votes are just some joke on our expense *hrmph* Zerak talk 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- We're up to 8 votes, with Legend of the Five Rings Wikia as the only candidate with more votes than us (12, against our 8), also we're currently tied with the Nonsensepedia Wikia (an Uncyclopedia-type project). In any case, the L5R wikia looks pretty decent, so I wouldn't be too bothered about losing out to them this month - we'd probably just get our shot next month. But let's see how things go.. :) Zerak talk 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, missed that. Thanks. Johnnyriot999 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Spotlight
Maybe this is related or not, but how did/do we get on the Spotlight? Johnnyriot999 09:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that was several months ago (they since seem to have changed the spotlight to a dynamic list of wikis), see also Talk:Main_Page/Archive01#Spotlight. Zerak talk 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Size Does Matter?
Hooray, we're a Big Wiki, thank heaven for Viagra! :p Zerak talk 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the size of the wiki that counts it's how you use it. ; ) Johnnyriot999 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Current Year
Would it be possible to add somewhere on the front page that the current year is 1375 DR. Perhaps as an add-on to the sentence after the link to the History portal. I was thinking "From the dawn of the Creator Races to present day of 1375 DR." My basis for advancing the current year is that Unclean was set in that year. Johnnyriot999 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm up for doing that, anyone else want to give their two cents before I whip out the big pen? Zerak talk 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm against using 1375 because even though there's one novel set in that year, the 3.5 edition is set in the first half of 1373 (as per Player's Guide to Faerûn). A lot of things seem to be set in 1374 though, so I'm kind of torn between 1373 and 1374. Wasn't there a novel set way in the future, like 1378 or something? Fw190a8 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The epilogue of Final Gate is set in 1380 DR. But I still think 1375 is good Zerak talk 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I cringed when Final Gate had that last bit in 1380 DR. 1375 seems fine. The FR Dragon/Rage Sourcebook is all in 1374 (and talks about 1375 in present tense when discussing the aftermath of Calimport and the big Blue battle). I haven't checked to see if the new "super-adventure" models for Shadowdale and Cormyr have dates in them yet. We do need to have a way to move the date along as the official books move along. --Fizzygoo 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The epilogue of Final Gate is set in 1380 DR. But I still think 1375 is good Zerak talk 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm against using 1375 because even though there's one novel set in that year, the 3.5 edition is set in the first half of 1373 (as per Player's Guide to Faerûn). A lot of things seem to be set in 1374 though, so I'm kind of torn between 1373 and 1374. Wasn't there a novel set way in the future, like 1378 or something? Fw190a8 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)