FANDOM

Niirfa-sa

aka Niirfa, Nivenus

  • I live in Oregon
  • My occupation is Social media manager
  • I am Male

Template for Elven/Eladrin subraces Edit

Hi! I see that you created a new template for the Eladrin subraces. Great job, it looks quite good. In thinking about this more though, I think we should keep the Elven and Eladrin subraces together in the same template. If you have a chance, let's discuss this in the appropriate Talk page. Thanks!  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status on imageEdit

Please add a usage rationale for Image:Faerun_map.jpg. Is this a freely available image online? Did you create it? Does it fall under fair use? Without this we will have no choice but to delete it. Fw190a8 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to Elven Subraces template Edit

Hi, I'd like to undo your most recent change to the elven subraces template. If you have a chance, please see the Talk page so we can discuss it further.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Spells / Rituals / Prayers / etc... Edit

I've added a number of templates that might help with the update to spells for 4th edition.

I've also updated a number of the articles for spells to include both 3rd edition and 4th edition info. As such, since the articles need to be "edition-aware", we should likewise keep the relevant categories from both 3rd and 4th edition. I don't see too much trouble with this... for example since cleric spells are now "prayers" in 4th edition, it's easy to distinguish 4th edition cleric spells from 3rd edition spells. Likewise, wizard spells were always "sorcerer/wizard" in 3rd edition, and in 4th edition they're solely "wizard", so the distinction is easy. Long-term, we may wish to rename the categories to make them more edition-aware.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned "I'm pretty sure divine magic spells are still considered 'prayers' - just as druid spells would be considered 'invocations.' ". I assume you mean in 4e? Absolutely! Whereas in 3rd edition they were called spells. Sorry for the confusion.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 14:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to goblin articleEdit

It looks like you edited an old version of goblin in this edit - things like the emboldened first word and the reomval of the unreferenced template have been undone. Could you check this out please? Fw190a8 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing the Gleemax forumsEdit

Regarding your recent citations of the Gleemax forums, for example the one towards the end of the Moonstars article, I took the liberty of creating a new template, {{Cite web/Gleemax forums}}, which will hopefully provide an easier way to cite the forums directly. One of the problems with the citations was that although you linked to a specific page, there could be many posts on that page, and even if the author was provided, the author might have posted many times on the page, so it wasn't immediately clear what was being cited. In addition, it's possible that some forum posts can be deleted, shifting certain posts back a page. Hopefully, because the new template allows citation of a specific post, it will be easier to be accurate. I have changed the one on the Moonstars article to give an idea of how it works, but I'd like to know what you think! Fw190a8 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blood fiend / TsagothEdit

Hi there... just for explanation. In Unclean and Undead (novel) it is often mentioned that Tsagoth is an "undead blood fiend" (being the only blood fiend appearing in the book), that's why I wrote undead as property of Blood fiend so maybe it is especially Tsagoth who is undead and not Blood fiends in general... My two cents Elysara 09:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

4E Wiki Edit

Just so you don't think my accusation that you only want a 4E Wiki is baseless, take this example: Nagas. Now I know in 4E, for no reason, nagas suddenly went from just 'snake monsters' to 'immortal demon creatures'. So you have changed all the nagas in to the immortal demon creatures. Of course the nagas of the Realms for 20 years of real time, and 20,000 years of Realms time are now all suddenly 'immortal'. It's clear that all non 4E nagas are just natural creatures. Yet the naga pages says they are all 'immortal'. This is your edition bias. Instead of just adding a note about the changes in 4E, you rewrote the article to make it useless to anyone except a 4E person. You are all into 'merging' pages to delete as much 1E,2E and 3E content as possible to make your pure 4E wiki. After all, no one can look up the aberration type naga, as you deleted it all and made them demons(or whatever they are in 4E). (Bloodtide 03:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Stuff like that is why I don't like 4E. They also nerfed the arcane spellcasters. In my personal campaign, I'm using the 3.5E rules in the 4E FR time period.StarSword 16:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Category fixes: Thanks Edit

Regarding the category problems on Amie Fern, etc.: I knew I was missing something obvious, but that's just dumb. *sound of head hitting wall* Thanks. StarSword 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of "4e illusionist.jpg" image Edit

Hi Niirfa-sa. The usage of the Image:4e illusionist.jpg does not appear to fall within fair-use guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion if you feel otherwise. Also, are there other images like this from the paid subscription of Dragon magazine? Thanks,  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, let's use the art galleries for Dragon magazine from now on then -- that would seem to fall within fair-use as "promotional". Regarding issue #364 itself, since it does appear to be free, it's possible that we're okay as well. I'll make this clearer in the attribution of the image.  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Larloch and King of ShadowsEdit

Hi - this edit of the Larloch article is being queried on Talk:Larloch. Do you have a source for the King of Shadows being called Larloch?  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, and I can see the origin of the confusion. I have made an edit which aims to clear it up even further, but if you feel this is a step too far, please feel free to revert.  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my problem with it was that the wording was a little confusing. The fix makes it obvious what you were disambiguating. (Is that a word?) StarSword 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doomguide: LN only in 3E Edit

According to Faiths and Pantheons, doomguides are only allowed to be lawful neutral. Here's the relevant passage:

REQUIREMENTS

To qualify to become a doomguide, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Alignment
Lawful neutral.
Base Save Bonus
Will +4.
Skills
Diplomacy 5 ranks, Knowledge (the planes) 5 ranks.
Feats
Extra Turning, Great Fortitude.
Spells
Ability to cast speak with dead as a divine spell.
Patron
Kelemvor.
Special
The character must have destroyed an undead of at least 5 HD, whether by using weapons, spells, or positive energy. He does not need to have done this alone.
The character must be proficient with the bastard sword.
  — Eric L. Boyd, Erik Mona (May 2002). Faiths and Pantheons. (Wizards of the Coast), p. 187. ISBN 0-7869-2759-3.

Maybe they changed it in 4E, but at least as far as 3E and 3.5E are concerned, it looks pretty clear-cut to me.

How's this: I add a second alignment grid to the infobox, and label one of them 3E and the other 4E. StarSword 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Shaman image? Edit

The image for the Shaman doesn't appear to be from a (free) promotional source (?). If you don't log in as a user, the link that is provided does not display the image. As such, we'll have to remove it. Please let me know if I missed something. Thanks,  SkyeNiTessine (talk · contr) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of apostrophesEdit

Hi, just as a heads up, you changed a whole bunch of apostrophes from the standard typewriter apostrophe to the curly version, but this is against the manual of style guidelines on the subject and involves some pretty heavy changes such as article moves, etc.  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 17:59, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Call to editEdit

I wanted to issue a "call to edit" for all our regular editors who haven't been active recently, so I'm writing on their talk pages! The activity on the wiki has dropped recently but there's still a lot of work to be done to move it forwards, so if you can spare some time to return to editing, it would be much appreciated!  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 21:59, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Good to know you're still around and that you plan to return one day!  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 17:30, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hey do you know how the Wiki Blogs work? I might be a nice way to communicate? Hurtzbad 00:50, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Moving pagesEdit

When moving pages, please use the move button at the top of the article, rather than just copying and pasting the article from one place to another. If you do the latter, the entire page history is lost and it makes it difficult to see that a move has occurred. Thanks.  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 21:28, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Featured articlesEdit

Thanks for adding Cormyr to the featured articles category. I'd forgotten about that!  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 17:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes to begin articlesEdit

With regard to this edit, I'd actually be against beginning articles with quotes, and always advocate presenting the facts and an overview section at the top of any article. I do think quotes have their place, but belong in their own section, as with the Minsc article (although they could perhaps be presented better in that particular example) or perhaps on their own article entirely.

I think we should aim to follow Wikipedia:WP:LEAD on this, since it's inviting editors to quibble over which quote would best be placed at the top, or whether we should have 6 quotes at the top of an article. I think it also encourages editors to write articles in the style of the quote, whereas the wiki should focus on presenting the facts, with no emotive language that could potentially distort information.  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 19:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you're saying here and I do think you're right to keep an eye on how other wikis are doing it. Wookieepedia has a definite "tongue in cheek" approach that is evident even in the name of the wiki itself, and I do think this works well for them. I think we've set ourselves out to be very precise, very factual and very accurate in the information we present. That said, I don't think that should stop us from being creative in other areas, like the design of our infoboxes and such (nice work on {{Creature}}, by the way!).  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 19:27, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Demons and CelestialsEdit

I just got a query on my talk page that I don't know much about, so I was hoping you'd be able to answer that one. Feel free to write straight on my talk page since the user is an anon!  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 15:59, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Changes to spellsEdit

I'm a bit confused with some of the changes to spells such as this one. Although plant growth is a druid evocation in 4th edition, your edit has removed all information for previous editions. I think it's important we do not favour one edition over another, and there is a place for information relating to earlier editions on these spells.  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 17:02, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate your time explaining the reasoning, too. I would like to see things move to a truly editionless wiki where anybody can get the information regardless of what edition it's for. I'm wondering, though, using that spell as an example: in 3.5, it was a ranger spell too. On the updated article, there's no mention of its availability to rangers. If someone was researching spells for their ranger character, they would have been able to find the spell using the category system, but after the changes, this is no longer possible. Is there some sort of compromise available here, or do you not see that as an issue?  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 23:17, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the above, I actually thought it might be an issue worth discussing with everyone rather than just us two, so I've added Forum:The future of spells with the aim of moving the discussion there!  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 23:27, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Image problemEdit

Seems to be a problem with File:Devas MM2 4e.jpg. Could you check it out?  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 21:10, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it has sorted itself. Can you add a copyright tag and category?  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 21:11, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Pre-spell-plague Edit

I am sure I will do this wrong but please bear with me. I am a long-time player of 2E. My friends and I play a pre-spell-plague campaign and I was wondering if you could point out some Realms supplements that are consonant with 1298DR. 2E not necessary- I can tweak. Thank you so much.--75.142.100.17 16:24, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Creature updates Edit

Hi Niirfa-sa.

Good work updating the creature infoboxes. However, please take you don't lose the older edition details. For example, in planetar, the set of 3.x alignments was changed for the set of 5e alignments. Both are valid for the wiki, so maybe both alignment boxes could be included? Or do you think edition-specific parameters (a 3e box, a 4e box, a 5e box) would be better? — BadCatMan (talk) 08:28, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

I just took a long look at the {{Creature}} template and it's got some problems which appear to have propagated to all the sub-templates as well (they seem to be copies with a different color scheme).

  1. Those sub-templates should call the Creature template with an extra parameter to change the color scheme. Was it your plan to do this eventually?
  2. The first line of the template opens a table which looks like never gets closed. I think it can be removed.
  3. This makes my brain hurt: {{#if:{{#if:{{{text|}}}|{{{text}}}|4c4b28}}|color: #{{#if:{{{text|}}}|{{{text}}}|4c4b28}}|color: #4c4b28}}; I think it can be replaced with color:#{{{text|4c4b28}}};
  4. Same for the line that begins {{#if:{{#if:{{{background|}}}... which becomes background: #{{{background|dfdecf}}};
  5. What the heck is combatant3? Where is this template called with that parameter?
  6. There is also presumably a third unnamed parameter {{{3|}}}. Where is it specified?

And there's probably more. Do you want to work on this? If not, I'll tackle it at some point. —Moviesign (talk) 04:38, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to work with you on this!
I'll admit I'm very much an amateur with CSS and HTML; I basically learn as I go, part by imitation, part by experimentation. I've actually tried simplifying the creature template a few times but with little success and it doesn't surprise me you've found some issues! I'll try implementing the changes you've recommended and see if they work.
Let me know if you have any other suggestions or need any help. I know you're also hard at work on updating the templates. Niirfa-sa (talk) 07:36, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, I don't know what's up with combatant3. I think I may have lifted it by accident from the conflict template earlier but I don't really recall (that was years ago). I tried deleting it earlier today but it actually messed up the template's format quite a bit (it sent the image of toward the left rather than centering it and misaligned the entire infobox) so I'm going to be careful dealing with it in the future. But if you can figure out a way to disable it that'd be great, because I've been wondering the same thing. Niirfa-sa (talk) 07:40, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look and see what went wrong. In the meantime, if you are going to be tweaking a template, would you please do it in your sandbox until it's ready for prime time? Changing live templates potentially breaks hundreds of pages with one edit, greatly increasing the chance that a reader is presented with a broken infobox, even if it's for a short time. Thanks! —Moviesign (talk) 13:24, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Any idea where "tantable" is defined? I don't think it exists on our wiki. —Moviesign (talk) 14:02, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Well, it definitely exists somewhere...—Moviesign (talk) 14:07, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, checkout User:Moviesign/Template:Creature and see what you think. The template should make more sense now. —Moviesign (talk) 18:05, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! Everything seems to be working the way it was before and there doesn't appear to be any functionality lost. Thank you very much for your help!
As a general rule if I'm trying something new, I do try it out on my own profile first before altering a template on the wiki. I only make a change to a template if I'm pretty sure it'll work (although I've been known to make a mistake from time to time in this regard). I'll aim to be more careful in the future however. Niirfa-sa (talk) 18:37, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Niirfa, I was just wondering about the color coding... you have given the demodand page the Immortal (creature) light blue tag, yet all the references are from 3.5 or lower, plus there is no reference that these creatures are immortals, only outsiders... many of the monsters have changed type over the different editions... don't you feel like this color coding is breaking the non-edition specific rule? What about the duergar... they have been dwarves and have been fiends... I know you want to reshape the wiki, but I am just worried we are going to have to change things later... do we really need to have the Creature infoboxes colored? I know you have worked really hard so far and want to make sure everyone is in agreement for this change :) - Darkwynters (talk) 22:56, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it as breaking the edition-specific ruling per se, because origin is something that although new to 4e can easily be applied to both pre- and post-4e creatures. Indeed, I recently separated origin and type into two separate descriptors specifically so as to allow 1e/2e/3e/5e typing to apply without conflicting 4e typing.
To address both your specific examples, demodands are outsiders, who come from the Outer Planes. With the sole exception of the Abyss (which in 4e FR was an explicit case of Asmodeus moving it from the Astral Plane/Sea to the Elemental Chaos), all of the Outer Planes are astral dominions and essentially all of the creatures that occupied them or the Astral Plane are immortals. Duergar may now have a connection to devils, but they're still described as natural creatures in the 4e Monster Manual (much as tieflings are fiend-descendants but are also "natural" rather than immortal).
Basically, this is how 4e origin typing works:
  • Natural: Creatures from the Prime (or an alternate Prime). Not something that really changes at all per edition; the Prime's present in every edition.
  • Fey: Creatures from the Feywild, or closely connected to it. Again, applies pretty widely. Although the Feywild's new to 4e it's heavily based on the Plane of Faerie, which existed in at least 3e (not sure about 2e) and elves' official history puts their origin there, even in pre-4e sources. I will grant there may need to be a further distinction between what 3e/5e calls "fey" (as a creature type) and what 4e calls "fey" (an origin), similar to the distinction between elemental and elemental creature, although all 3e/5e fey are also 4e fey.
  • Shadow: Creatures from the Shadowfell. Again, the Shadowfell's mostly a renaming/reworking of the Plane of Shadow from prior editions. Nothing particularly out of place here.
  • Immortal: Creatures from the Astral Sea or the Astral dominions. The Astral Sea is a renaming/reworking of the Astral Plane and the Astral dominions are, to the last, reworked Outer Planes. As a result I don't think it's a stretch to assume all creatures from the Astral Plane and the Outer Planes in 1e/2e/3e/5e are immortals, unless specifically stated otherwise (like demons and daemons).
  • Aberration: Creatures with some kind of connection to the Far Realm. This is the only hiccup I see, simply because not every aberration from prior editions has a stated connection to the Far Realm or the Great Old Ones. However, a possible solution is simply to separate the aberrant origin and aberration as a creature type into separate categories (like elemental and elemental creature).
I've also set Template:Creature as "natural" by default, so that if a creature's origin is nebulous the styling of the template assumes nothing specific. As it is, I don't think there's a major conflict, although as I've said earlier my approach toward edition neutrality is more of an integrationalist/evolutionist approach, where the information gradually accumulates over time, rather than replacing it.
It's probably also worth mentioning that Wizards' official stance on the cosmology for 5e (as of last January) is that all of the cosmologies (1e/2e/3e/5e's Great Wheel, FR's World Tree, 4e's World Axis, Eberron's Orrery) are correct to some degree. Niirfa-sa (talk) 23:47, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
Aha, I realized I left one creature origin out (which is funny considering I mentioned it multiple times, and that's elemental creatures!
  • Elemental: Creatures from the Elemental Chaos or the elemental realms. The Abyss and Limbo aside, all of the elemental realms correspond to one of the Inner Planes or their subdivisions. Demons, daemons/yugoloths, and slaadi are the main hiccup here, as they all dwelt in the Outer Planes pre- (and now post- ) 4e.
In all other cases though, the elemental origin of planar creatures means denizens of the Inner Planes and the immortal origin means denizens of the Outer Planes. Still, it's an exception worth mentioning. Niirfa-sa (talk) 09:08, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

Location templateEdit

Hey, Niirfa... I just noticed you made a few adjustments on the Template:Location page... Admin Movie has been working diligently on all the templates... I am not sure you changed anything important, but you might want to keep him updated on your progress so you guys do not trend on each others creative shoes :) - Darkwynters (talk) 05:08, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I'll keep that in mind. I've just been adjusting the templates to give them a unified appearance. Nothing much in the way of functionality; just aesthetics mostly. I'll let him know though. Niirfa-sa (talk) 07:32, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

Forum postsEdit

You can put external links in forum posts, but not if they contain an equals sign. Look up how to substitute a hex value for the equal sign—it will be something like %5a, I can't remember the exact value. I think it will work then. —Moviesign (talk) 02:23, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect it might've been something like that since when I shrunk the address down with Bitly, it suddenly worked. Niirfa-sa (talk) 04:50, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.