| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Calrond |
Posted - 22 Nov 2006 : 20:14:50
There's a Forgotten Realms Wiki that could use the help of a few wise sages to really flesh it out. I've done a little work on it, mostly concerning the Chosen of Mystra, but anyone with a knowledge of Realmslore, especially the more obscure, hard-to-find lore, can help make this Wiki more complete. Any and all help is appreciated.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Calrond |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 23:25:38
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Its very true that the Wiki is useful, if unfortunately lacking in certain aspects of Forgotten realms lore.
It is a mighty task indeed, as Sage and Krashos have attested to, which is where my ulterior motive for casting raise dead on this scroll comes in. I'm hoping those who see the project's worth might decide to stroll by every now and again...even if only to straigten books and dot some i's.
There are many articles (esoteric and iconic) that need the scholarly touch of those here in Candlekeep. Personally I just like the feeling of helping with a task much bigger than myself, as often I think maybe my contributions here are not enough. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 16:39:26
Its very true that the Wiki is useful, if unfortunately lacking in certain aspects of Forgotten realms lore. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 01:49:43
I find the Wiki helpful...to a certain degree. When I have time, I make sure to contribute as much as I can (which may not be that much) on certain areas of interest, or specialty, if you will. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 01:43:38
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I think a comprehensive locked-down FR Wiki would be brilliant. The issue is who has the man hours to devote to it? Better men than me, that's for sure. I struggle to keep up with my own haphazard, narrower in focus Realmslore collecting/collating efforts.
-- George Krashos
That's largely my own take as well.
I'd love to have time to commit to a fully-stocked Wiki of Realmslore, but I'm just having so much trouble trying to keep up with my own projects, that I fear my dedication to the Wiki would be frustratingly less than absolute. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 23:51:47
quote:
Originally posted by fw190a8
quote:
It is annoying when a well-written (references, detailed explanation) 3E or prior article is overwritten with a much shorter article that essentially says, "this area used to be a developed nation, locale, or whatever, but it's been nuked to make a different sandbox to play in."
If you see any articles like this, please put something on my talk page at http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fw190a8 (or any other regular editor) and it will get sorted.
The wiki policy is pretty clear in that it favours no specific edition, and just aims to collect and reference lore from canon Realms sources.
Will do. Sorry I don't have a specific instance to point you to, I'm bad about taking notes on such things. But if I notice it again, I will. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 22:06:04
That's disheartening to read. Why wouldn't someone just append a 4E update to the article? Unless they are just trying to be a jerk. |
| fw190a8 |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 21:27:21
quote:
It is annoying when a well-written (references, detailed explanation) 3E or prior article is overwritten with a much shorter article that essentially says, "this area used to be a developed nation, locale, or whatever, but it's been nuked to make a different sandbox to play in."
If you see any articles like this, please put something on my talk page at http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fw190a8 (or any other regular editor) and it will get sorted.
The wiki policy is pretty clear in that it favours no specific edition, and just aims to collect and reference lore from canon Realms sources. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 20:40:53
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
The Wiki can be a quick referance place but then i double check with source books if possible.
What i dislike about the Wiki is the messup between 4e and 3e articles as sources.
Yes. An annoyance I have is the occasional article gets re-written to only be relevant to 4E. It is annoying when a well-written (references, detailed explanation) 3E or prior article is overwritten with a much shorter article that essentially says, "this area used to be a developed nation, locale, or whatever, but it's been nuked to make a different sandbox to play in."
I'll admit, I usually don't check back to see if that's something they try and revert or fix, but it does make me go grr. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 16:34:17
The Wiki can be a quick referance place but then i double check with source books if possible.
What i dislike about the Wiki is the messup between 4e and 3e articles as sources. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 13:50:25
As has been stated, I find the wiki a good place to search for references. I vaguely recall a few instances where what was written in the wiki didn't match my reading and of the source material, but I did see how the wiki author came to the conclusion they did.
Overall, the Wiki has been a great starting point for several research projects, but ultimately I fact check against what I find here at the keep for semantic confusion. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 07:40:41
I have noticed it grow and develop over the years. One of my favorite things to do with my Kindle Fire is to do a search for a person or a place in a novel I am reading. I always get sent to the FR wiki and it usually has the info I need. I couldn't say that a few years ago.
As for taking the time to edit. It really is a collective effort and isn't designed to rely on just one person. So even the smallest contribution adds up over time.
So cheers to all of you who have been contributing. It hasn't gone unnoticed. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 06:26:13
It should be a group effort, hosted by some site dedicated just to realmslore...
If only such a site existed.  |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 26 Sep 2012 : 05:50:50
I think a comprehensive locked-down FR Wiki would be brilliant. The issue is who has the man hours to devote to it? Better men than me, that's for sure. I struggle to keep up with my own haphazard, narrower in focus Realmslore collecting/collating efforts.
-- George Krashos
|
| Aldrick |
Posted - 25 Sep 2012 : 22:54:35
I've always found the FR Wiki extremely helpful. One of the best aspects of it is how it references the source material. More often than not when I'm attempting to look something up I turn to the Wiki first. I may or may not scan what is written, but instead check the references.
This allows me to locate what I'm looking for instantly. Almost always it'll reference the exact pages as well. Often times it will reference minor mentions in other books, or online articles at the WotC site that I didn't know about.
I rarely use the FR Wiki by itself; almost always I'm using both the Wiki and the source books together. So, in my mind, the Wiki is an invaluable source for anyone seriously interested in Realms Lore - there is just too much of it to keep it in our heads. That's what makes the Wiki useful. |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 25 Sep 2012 : 04:01:49
Hello there fellow scribes of the Keep,
It's been a healthy 4 years since the last gasps of discussion on the wiki ended here and I was wondering what you all thought now that the wiki has had a lot more time to expand and refine itself.
I've been contributing in carefully targeted doses, every so often, over the last 3 years and the process of getting stuck in has continually deepened my admiration of the sheer size and complexity of the Realms. It has often felt like there is only a small band (maybe a score or so) of us dedicated wiki-smiths tinkering and polishing the vast store of lore into a reliable format....definately gives an insight into what the true scribes of Candlekeep must go through.
I guess this is partly a test-the-water post and partly a humble request for perhaps at enticing some more scholars to the cause. The lore is ever-growing and I've found the potential for the wiki to be a edition-proof repository means the more help the better!
What say ye? scribes, readers, and lore-wardens all! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 19:55:02
A Mod pre-emptive strike? 
Are you also looking for WMDs?
Anyhow, I can see this is a 'touchy' subject, but I find the Wiki useful. At least once a week (it used to be at least once a day) I come across a reference to something or someone I don't recognize, and I can usually find an answer pretty damn quick on the Wiki.
Then, if I want to know more then just the basics of what it is, I look to the canon sources. Most times, however, I just need to know the 'what' of it, to help put it into perspective of whatever little project I'm working on ATM. I use ALL Wikis that way, and find them extremely useful just for giving lists of further references to continue my studies.
Its like the difference between reading a piece of literature, and studying Cliff's Notes - its the 'fast & dirty' answer.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 05:37:40
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
We really don't need to debate this whole sub-topic again. It's been dealt with. So please leave it at that.
I thought I had...
My post was mainly a warning to future scribes who may have felt the need to debate the issue further, as I indicated in the next part of the post which you just quoted. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 04:15:56
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
We really don't need to debate this whole sub-topic again. It's been dealt with. So please leave it at that.
I thought I had...
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
I missed the bandwagon about speaking against the wiki because of the possibility of having flawed or misleading information creep in due to biased editors... and, frankly, am glad I did.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 03:11:02
Before it even starts again, I'd just like to note that we really don't need to debate this whole sub-topic again. It's been dealt with. So please leave it at that.
I'd prefer that all future scribes intent on contributing to this discussion, concentrate specifically on the question Hashimashadoo has recently brought up here in this scroll. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 03:06:03
I check the FR Wiki frequently, if only as the easiest place to find complete lists of published gaming sources.
|
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 02:54:06
That's exactly why i took over the wiki from it's defunct founder. I wanted to turn it into not only an encyclopedia but a comprehensive DM's reference tool. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 02:48:47
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Noone wants to know anything else about the wiki?
I missed the bandwagon about speaking against the wiki because of the possibility of having flawed or misleading information creep in due to biased editors... and, frankly, am glad I did.
I like the wikia layout for information gathering, and I'd like to see the Realms really thoroughly detailed as much as possible in this format for easy reference. Its not that I'm lazy, its just that sometimes I have an idea for an adventure or character and can't remember details (or where to look for them) and don't have the time before the next game session to start paging through every novel and sourcebook I own. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 02:35:11
*thread necromancy*
Noone wants to know anything else about the wiki? Seems most scribes have a pre-set viewpoint regarding our little project. I'd like to get more support from official sources as well as members of the community. So far, we've talked to Todd Lockwood and Paul Kemp. Looking to find out whether WotC is ever going to resurrect the 'official' FR wiki project. |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 06 Sep 2008 : 20:15:51
I'm a member there as well I edit frequently and often. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 06 Sep 2008 : 19:26:18
Easy enough. Articles which are linked to but do not exist yet are listed in order by how many links they have. This is supposed to be an indication of the importance of creating an article sooner, rather than later. Unfortunately some of the categorizing templates such as the one that lists all the various types of demon are placed at the end of every page about specific types of demons, thus creating a lot more links to other types of demon and raising their positions on the Wanted Pages list. This is of course due to the fact that, there are much more interesting and, more importantly Realms-specific articles to be created.
There is also a page dedicated to specific requests for the creation of articles from those who really want to see it made ASAP. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 01:41:52
Agreed. The issue of editing Wiki entries has been debated enough.
Let us return to other discussions about the FR Wiki itself. Perhaps about what content we'd like to see included? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 20:49:27
And with everything that's been said, tempers are a bit high. Perhaps we could all take a deep breath, and just start over anew? I really don't want to close the thread. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 17:47:15
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
*sigh* this would be why I tend to lurk rather than contribute
Don't be upset. :(
And I agree with you about lurking lately, which is why my posts have fallen. |
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 17:44:10
*sigh* this would be why I tend to lurk rather than contribute |
| Kuje |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 17:32:36
Well, I was going to stay out of this but I am a bit insulted because it sure felt, to me, that he was calling us liars. Even if he didn't say it, his words come across that we are making up what we experienced and that isn't the case for some of us.
So, I truely don't want to help someone who, again, to me, dismissed everything I said.
Now, I'm leaving this thread again.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
Perhaps it's just me, but fw190a8 I believe that you're missing the point. And continuing to beat a dead horse is rather futile. Not to mention all but flat out calling three of the realms leading scholars liars doesn't really help your argument either.
To be fair, fw190a8 didn't specifically call any of us liars. He was merely concerned that some of what we were saying was based more on assumptions, than actual fact.
|
