To Do[]
- Expand all stubs
- Create stuff for red links.
- Create a character template table, Ideas, add to this list
Will the age category not be "unknown" in alot of NPCs? Just a thought, it might be a bit superflous. I also added a Deity Template based on one from Wikipedia, let me know what you think (it's based on the Faith and Pantheons layout. Zerak-Tul 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Rewrote the Mirt article, go take a look and let me know what you think, though I still think the Age cateogry is a bit unneeded as it will be "Unknown" for the majority of characters Zerak-Tul 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hows about we come up with an organization template? Ideally it should include the approx. no. of members, General alignment, What type it is (e.g. Expansive Government, Minor Mercenary, etc.), possibly the leaders/authority figures.
On the topic of "To Do" check out the Wanted Page. Zerak-Tul 16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Extent of the Project[]
Are we going to create articles for base DnD concepts like character clasess, alignments, ability scores etc. Which are not unique to the Forgotten Realms setting?
- Not sure yet. I added red links for 'cleric' and 'Wizard' so far but I might remove them. We should definitely cover the Realms-specific classes and PrCs, if not all of them but I'm pretty set on not including any that are unique to Greyhawk, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, etc. etc.
- I think that these D&D concepts must link somewhere to maintain ease of use, so I have created a number of stubs for things like character classes and races. I think it is important to detail Forgotten Realms-specific information in these articles (such as how FR clerics differ from clerics in generic D&D) but then it's a toss-up between duplicating generic class information from Wikipedia or merely linking there. Fw190a8 04:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Dale Reckoning Years[]
Just a poll to gauge peoples opionon on articles on dale reckoning years (e.g. 1358 DR).
How should we tackle these? I see a few different options:
1. Each year gets its own article with or without the DR suffixed ('1357 DR', '1358 DR' Pros:
- Some years have alot of events, and so deserve their own articles.
- Easy to keep the same style for all the articles.
Cons:
- Almost endless amount of articles.
- Some (early) year articles would be very short.
2. Years are bunched into groups (e.g. The Days of Thunder) with year numbers redirecting to the appropriate article (e.g. '~34000 DR' would redirect to 'The Days of Thunder'). Pros:
- Far less stubs.
- Creates bigger(better) articles.
Cons:
- Requires alot of cooperation and planning (deciding how to divide up the years).
- Needs alot of redirects (I don't really see this as a con, but listing it, because some might be opposed to this).
3. Some variation of the above, or something else entirely (comment below)..
- A brief question here: what would happen if there was a group of years for which we had no name? What would the article be called? Simply (for example) 1250 to 1280 DR? I think articles for a group of years would be better, because, as mentioned, otherwise there will be some very short articles. On the issue of creating redirects from individual years to their associated group of years article, I don't see that as a problem either, and if there weren't redirects, it would be unreasonable to expect article authors to look up the exact name of the group of years they were looking for. With redirects, they can just wiki link to the specific year they're writing about. Fw190a8 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems good, P. Let's make it standard.
Hey, do I automatically join this wiki by being a wikicities member? -- Doo Doo 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes you Do, Doo Doo. :) You have to create a separate talk page though. hash 11:47, 1 February 2006 (GMT)
Greetings to all! I'm new here and a huge Forgotten Realms fan. I have tons of books and am more than willing to add to this wiki based on those. Some articles may be a bit sparse, but the nature of this Wiki virtually guarantees that some articles may be more detailed than others. I will do my best despite this. Artemis 22:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, The Greenwood has deemed that only published works are considered Forgotten Realms Canon. I have never read the Baldur's Gate books (apparently they're a pile of crap) So what's your opinion on writing about the events of the games AS IF they were in the books, since I'm kinda an expert on the games and more people have played them than read the books anyway. hash 21:31, 15 April 2006 (GMT)
- I suppose that you could write a section about the events of baldur's gate, as long as you underline that it's non-canon( and non real, since in the realms, cyric is still the god of murder)--DavidAlexandrov 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please somebody move this from 'Catagotry 'Stubs' to 'Catagory: Writing a wiki'.[]
Uhh.. a generically good idea IIRC. Please consider for movement.
Suggestions[]
Unsure of where to put this, but I suppose this will do. I suggest we write a clear manual of style for the wiki, so our articles become more uniform. Mainly, I suggest we agree on things such as: should in-universe articles be written in past or present tense; should we keep "out of universe" information in articles on in-universe things in a separate "behind the scenes" section?; etcetera. Any thoughts? --Imp 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good suggestions, and I agree that we will need some guidelines to create uniform content. We've already pondered a few policies, but basicly we decided that there are just too few editors currently to it being worth the trouble (A handful of editors agreeing to and voting on policies just seems silly, "All in favor say 'aye'" "4x 'aye'" "Motion carried." kinda silly :P).
- As for past/present tense, it's basicly just looking at the information to see if it's dated events; as such, most of the article on Myrkul a now dead god would be written in past tense.
- Long story short, instead of writing long manuals of style, we're trying to focus on improving the content instead, atleast until we attract more editors. Any format issues we take up as we go along, or by simply looking what others have done already. Zerak-Tul 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose you're right. However, can we agree to synchronize tenses (in a non-policy way)? Does Forgotten Realms take place "a long time ago"? --Imp 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unlike Star Wars we don't have "A long time ago in a galaxy far away" :o), but if you look at the article Marking the Years you'll see the years used, the most commonly used reckoing is 'Dale Reckoning' and as Wizards of the Coast release new products they gradually advance the years, to accomodate new events. Last I checked the "Current Year" was 1374 DR but I suspect Wizards have produced material beyond that, unsure, we get all the products a bit later than you americans over here in Denmark :)
- But in a nutcase, if the article is about a place or person, use present tense, unless the information is about an event that occured at a specific time (example: Lords of Waterdeep should be present tense as they are the current rulers of Waterdeep, articles on previous rulers of the city should be past tense), hope that helps! Zerak-Tul 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- That helps alot, thank you. =) --Imp 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're very welcome Zerak-Tul 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Name change[]
To me, "community portal" isn't really very descriptive for new people. I'd like to see this page changed to "Getting started" so it's obvious to new people that they can click on it to... well, to get started. Even to people who aren't new, they'll still be able to find function in the page. Fw190a8 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why not just have a link to here from getting started? Isn't the community portal supposed to be used for major community wide discussions, rather than a "getting started" page?--Outermost_ToeGot a question? 00:00, December 16, 2010 (UTC)