Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Forgotten Realms Wiki!
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

BadCatMan
Learned Scribe

Australia
342 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  08:02:39  Show Profile Send BadCatMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
I am happy to announce that the Forgotten Realms Wiki has passed its 12,000th article!

I got involved in the FRW early last year, and eventually became an administrator, and have seen it grow and expand quite impressively. We have a good number of active editors contributing new content and new articles, and several active administrators keeping things tidy and organized and introducing new policies and features while old problems are put behind us. We have ongoing efforts to clean up, organise, and standardise old articles.

In the last few months, we've got a new Main Page (thanks to me!), a Featured Article and Featured Source system (mostly me), and a weekly "Did You Know...?" feature (uh, me again). Over the past year, we've got new and highly developed lore articles from:
* All over the Vast (in progress), including Procampur;
* Across Zakhara;
* A fully developed Wheloon;
* The planes in every cosmology;
* Everything you wanted to know about Larloch the Shadow King but were afraid to ask;
and heaps more! New users are also putting out new articles from Darkwalker on Moonshae, Shadowbane: Eye of Justice, The Gilded Rune, Brimstone Angels: Lesser Evils, City of the Spider Queen and more. So both the classic Realms and the new are being detailed in equal measure.

So with the FRW going well, I wanted to get in contact with the wider Forgotten Realms fandom. What do you think of the Forgotten Realms Wiki? Do you use it? Did you have problems with it in the past or do you have problems with it now? What do you want to see more of, or what would you like to see change? I welcome all reasonable opinions.

Plus of course I invite everyone to head on over to the wiki, to explore the Realms and write up that Realmslore!

BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  09:13:08  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I LOVE the FR Wiki. It's perfect when I need some commonly known piece of information, and the fact that it references source material is an amazing help. So, not only can I easily find something I'm looking for, I can go back and check the source itself (which I frequently do).

The wiki is especially helpful when studying something that gets mentioned in multiple source books. Sometimes there is a random paragraph (say in the middle of a Volo's Guide) that expands on something mentioned only briefly in another source book. So, having a place where all the individual source books are referenced is an amazing help.

If I had two critiques about the FRW they would be....

1. I can, at times, find the edition prioritization frustrating.

quote:
Equal preference is given to all editions of the game. Editors are not at liberty to prioritise one edition above another. The lore is generally unchanged from edition to edition, but contradictions arising in different editions should favour the newer edition, but care should be taken to make mention of all editions and reference each.


The bolded part is what I take issue with, because I feel that it puts too much of a preference on 4E lore rather than having 'preference given to all editions' equally. However, I find this to be more of an organizational issue. I would enjoy a greater delineation between the various editions of the setting. I feel that this is very important, especially for aspects of the lore - mainly deities and areas - that have undergone massive changes over time.

As an example, if I'm playing a game where the Time of Trouble's didn't happen it's useful to see and know where all the portfolio shifts happened. Similarly, 4E brought huge changes to the setting. So I think it's helpful to have things organized in a way that shows how things changed and evolved over time.

It's helpful from both a lore perspective, because sometimes things can be contradictory, but it's also helpful from an ease of use perspective. If I'm ignoring an entire section of the lore (Everything Post ToT, or Post Spellplague - as many people do), it's difficult to parse through what is useful and what is not.

2. I'd like to see a portal dedicated to fanon / homebrew lore. I think post Spellplague a lot of people like me made a huge split with canon. As a result, I like looking at other people's changes to the Realms. This allows me to lift good ideas for my home Realms. I also like sharing my own homebrew Realms so that other people can borrow anything they find useful.

To be clear I wouldn't want this intermingled with the canon lore stuff - that would be horrific. I would, however, enjoy seeing a Portal for homebrew stuff, some of the d20 wiki's I've seen have sections set up where people could submit their homebrew classes, races, PrC's, etc. I'm basically picturing it as the same thing.

Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  10:12:37  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Let me actually expand on my first point to be more clear.

I like how the FRW has divided itself up into three eras: Age of Humanity (Pre-ToT), Era of Upheaval (Post-ToT), and Post-Spellplague Age (Post Spellplague).

What I would like to see is the lore organized according to those different eras. Thus, you might find a section on the wiki for a deities entry labeled "Age of Humanity". In this section of the deities entry the ONLY relevant canon material that should be referenced is material that was published prior to the Time of Troubles. Works published after the Time of Troubles could also be referenced ONLY IF it is clear that what took place happened prior to the Time of Troubles.

As an example, you could take a 3E source book such as Lost Empires which may contain new material about a particular deity - say an event that took place in 109 DR. This is obviously pre-ToT, and thus theoretically should be added to the Age of Humanity section, even though the source book was published post-ToT.

However, there is a grey area here and it's somewhat tricky. Future published material may retcon previously published material, or may reference things that simply don't gel with previously established lore. As an example, let's say that we find out that one of the deities the Dark Three defeated was a Primordial. Now, we know Primordials are a post-Spellplague concept. So where would you put it? It clearly happened prior to the Time of Troubles, after all.

In my opinion this belongs in the Post Spellplague Age section, where it is mentioned as something like, "in later editions it is revealed that Borem, the Lake of Boiling Mud was a primordial."

I believe dividing up lore like this is really helpful and makes the wiki much more useful. And also, based on what we've heard about the 5E Realms source books being edition neutral, I think this will be extremely helpful.
Go to Top of Page

BadCatMan
Learned Scribe

Australia
342 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  11:11:10  Show Profile Send BadCatMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi, thanks for responding.

I should stress first that the FRW is very much a work-in-progress (and always will be, really) so that many concerns may be addressed already, but not fully implemented. We have 12,000+ articles to recheck, after all.

1) Edition War:
quote:
1. I can, at times, find the edition prioritization frustrating.


I share your concern. I actually argued against (and unsuccessfully) that part of the policy for the same reason. In practice, however, I've not found it to be a problem. It applies to actual contradictions and errors, not changes over time or a bit of retconning. Consider how Desert of Desolation, Bloodstone Lands, Kara-Tur and others changed when they were attached to the Forgotten Realms, with new names and such. It's not a hard and fast rule, either; I've always been able to pick or work in a bit of older lore where it makes more sense to do so. The "go with the latest source" is best used as tie-breaker or for organisational/administration purposes.

As the rest of that bit of the Canon policy states, we give equal preference to all editions and eras of history. The FRW also no longer tries to follow the advancing time-line. So, ideally, a complete article would detail all the lore from all editions, and discuss the history and changes, make it clear and let the reader decide.

For some recent, feature-worthy, fully detailed articles that cover both sides of the Spellplague, consider Wheloon and Larloch (both mine) and Elemental Plane of Fire and Nine Hells. They have "Post-Spellplague" sections and discussions of how things have changed over the editions, respectively. I hope these are suitable arranged and clear. Unfortunately, our best editors who go for that level of detail and completeness (me, Moviesign) aren't able to do everything (and I really don't care to cover anything after the Spellplague at all).

As you suggest, corralling all the 4th edition lore into a separate section would result in two distinct articles on so many pages, with the 4th edition version buried down the bottom. Cute. :) But, like it or not, we have to give equal focus to all parts of FR and keep to a simple organisation. If you still feel strongly about it, you could raise it for discussion in the FRW forum.

2) Homebrew Wiki:
Unfortunately, it would be very easy to confuse homebrew articles with canon articles, and would be a huge extra workload for wiki admins. Organisation would be very difficult. I think such a thing would be much better off as a dedicated fan-lore wiki.

BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31701 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  15:40:25  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I applaud your dedicative efforts, BCM.

As one of the long-time scribes who has always been a little weary of the "editable" nature of the FRWiki, I'm certainly prepared to give the site a more thorough looking-over, now.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore

5055 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  16:45:40  Show Profile  Visit The Hooded One's Homepage Send The Hooded One a Private Message  Reply with Quote
One comment from me, re. the FR wiki discussion of Ed's Candlekeep lore replies being considered or not.
One poster said: ". . . technically Ed's responses on the Candlekeep forums aren't officially published material."
Not so.
The original Realms agreement between Ed and TSR, which is the means by which the wider world got to see the Realms at all (beyond passing references in The Dragon and elsewhere, such as the late, lamented Gameplay magazine), is, paraphrased, this:
Ed is the creator of the Realms. Everything Ed publicly says or writes is canon, by definition, unless or until superceded by later material published by the copyright holder (so, TSR/WotC, but not a computer game license holder, unless Ed has blessed that non-WotC material as "canon"). So Ed's utterances at a GenCon seminar are canon, Ed's website columns are canon, what he says about the Realms in media interviews is canon, and what he says at Candlekeep is canon. Period.
Participants in the FR wiki can of course hold any opinions about the Realms or its lore they please, but there should be one thing that isn't open to debate, and that's Ed's status as the font of canon.
Disputing that is as disrespectful as telling Tolkien he isn't the authority on Middle-Earth. And is just plain wrong: that's the deal Ed made, so those are the rules, however any of us may feel about them. Your acceptance of that rule is implicit on your getting to experience the Realms at all.
I personally find the FR wiki very helpful as a reference, especially to later material that, as with Ed, doesn't "stick in my mind" as much as the older stuff, just because it hasn't happened around our home-campaign gaming table with Ed as DM. However, the flip side of that is that I have found a lot of homebrew lore from anonymous sources slipped in as canon, and when corrections have been made (not by me; I'm a passive reader only), the corrections have been overwritten and the spurious lore reinstated. This seems to have been rife in the past and happening less and less recently, though, and I applaud the current administrators.
There will always remain the awkward spots in every entry where the writer draws conclusions from incomplete lore, where this fact and that can be spun into X by one writer/designer/DM and into Y by another. The wiki will always be more valuable where extrapolations are identified as such, not presented with the same veneer of veracity that solid published lore is.
Right. Down off my soapbox. The wiki is worth arguing over because it's worth a lot to us all...
love,
THO
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1841 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  17:18:51  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's the wide-open nature of the wiki environment that makes me skittish about the FR Wiki as well. The inclusion of 4e material is of course not a point in its favor, for me. When I first found the Wiki a couplefew years ago, it seemed riddled with plagiarism and omissions of sources, and I pretty much dismissed it as useless. If you can't rely on it as a legitimate source, then where's the value, ya know? Being intolerant of lazy lorekeepers (and apparently a masochist), I started my own index of the Realms rather than contributing to the FR Wiki.

Since then, I've poked around a bit and seen firsthand the dedication the current admins (BadCatMan is one of several) have to rooting out plagiarism. When they discover it or it's pointed out, they're quick to flag the article. There's ample opportunity for a reader to rewrite the article in original language, but if it isn't satisfactorily addressed within a certain (relatively brief I believe) period of time, then it's summarily deleted. Which, in my opinion, is a responsible way to deal with it.

Furthermore, the admins are just cool people. I don't know how many times I've inadvertently violated policy or unwittingly stomped on someone's toes, and they're always courteous and patient with me. Plus, they are fans of the Realms, and they are shaping a definitive receptacle for Realmslore. The FR Wiki is a worthy resource, and it's in capable hands, and I'm glad it's there for all of us.
Go to Top of Page

silverwolfer
Senior Scribe

789 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  18:17:18  Show Profile Send silverwolfer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

The inclusion of 4e material is of course not a point in its favor, for me.



I don't know why, but this post sort of pissed me off....


4e, is still the forgotten realms, when we looked at this setting we pledged for better or for worse, the lore is still the lore.

You can stop being a customer, you can stop being a fan, but to say that something has 4e in it, seems very unfair. It is still forgotten realms, even if bastardized in some way. Creations go up and down, and will go back up again,now that GreenWood and such are back in charge.



I don't know, maybe am just sick and tired of 4e whining.
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1841 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  18:38:38  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It wasn't intended to be inflammatory; it was an opinion-oriented post. This tangent is off-topic, and both of our positions are strongly defensible so I suspect neither of us will convince the other, but I'm very willing to clarify/discuss our opinions in private messages, in the interest of eliminating any hard feelings.
Go to Top of Page

BEAST
Master of Realmslore

USA
1714 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  19:02:28  Show Profile  Visit BEAST's Homepage Send BEAST a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I use the wiki at least once a week to double-check something quickly when I don't have access to my personal notes, to look up an unfamiliar character name, or to re-establish a mental visual on a place location with a map. It's definitely a useful resource. So thank you, folks!

The easily-editable nature of a wiki still worries me. I've had too much of my own edits retroactively edited out on various wikis over the years, and it's enough to stifle my desire to keep trying.

In the past, I was frustrated with the effective 4E-instead-of-everything-else policy. So much good OLD stuff was being ignored or censored, that way.

This written policy, here, of the latest edition trumping all, but all editions still needing to be acknowledged, actually makes sense. It dovetails in with Ed's supremacy clause, as paraphrased by THO, in that whatever Ed says goes, until superceded by a newer official published source. That's very consistent with the FR Wiki's edition priorities. Just gotta make sure that the other contributors to the wiki remember to continue to respect the older lore, too.

BCM: when it comes to weighing the worth of Ed's writings here on the 'Keep or anywhere else, recall a little acronym that I coined here on the 'Keep:
BESSo, which means, "Because Ed Says So." ;)

I like the idea of a history or timeline within each article, showing how the lore has changed for that specific subject over time and editions. By directly tying each bit of lore not only to a source document, but also to a particular point in time or a particular edition, that should help to avoid offending readers by insinuating that one reading is any more right or official than another. They all very well might be, but only in relation to own their chronological context.

"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)

<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works">
Go to Top of Page

TBeholder
Master of Realmslore

1856 Posts

Posted - 20 May 2013 :  20:57:19  Show Profile Send TBeholder a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

I am happy to announce that the Forgotten Realms Wiki has passed its 12,000th article!
[...]
So with the FRW going well
All goes well.
quote:
I wanted to get in contact with the wider Forgotten Realms fandom. What do you think of the Forgotten Realms Wiki? Do you use it?
To look up contents of anthologies and other bibliographical data. At least, until Fanon, WeirdFanon and ReallyWeirdFanon got there, too.

People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  00:03:18  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One

However, the flip side of that is that I have found a lot of homebrew lore from anonymous sources slipped in as canon, and when corrections have been made (not by me; I'm a passive reader only), the corrections have been overwritten and the spurious lore reinstated. This seems to have been rife in the past and happening less and less recently, though, and I applaud the current administrators.


This is why I find the sources on the wiki so helpful. If something doesn't sound right to me, or I'm uncomfortable with the wording of something I can go back to the original source.

Simply due to the fact that there are SO MANY books, with lore about some of the more popular things in the Realms spread throughout all of them, having a list of where all that lore appears saves SO MUCH time.

For this reason alone to anyone who loves the Realms, and especially the lore of the Realms, the wiki is priceless. Honestly, as much as I've come to rely on it I can't imagine working without it now. Basically, it's like having an index for Realms lore.

I don't know how much other people use it, but for me if I'm working on something from the Realms - even here browsing at Candlekeep - nine times out of ten, I've got a browser tab with the FRW open on it, usually more than one.
Go to Top of Page

Eli the Tanner
Learned Scribe

United Kingdom
148 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  00:22:36  Show Profile  Visit Eli the Tanner's Homepage Send Eli the Tanner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

In my opinion this belongs in the Post Spellplague Age section, where it is mentioned as something like, "in later editions it is revealed that Borem, the Lake of Boiling Mud was a primordial."

I believe dividing up lore like this is really helpful and makes the wiki much more useful. And also, based on what we've heard about the 5E Realms source books being edition neutral, I think this will be extremely helpful.



Most of the admins and probably the majority of the contributors are not fans of the post-spellplague stuff either. In fact, recently there has been very little in the way of 4th edition editors oddly. Initially I was a bit relieved about because it made things easier for us and mean a lot of our work wasn't getting overwritten with confused/renamed/rebranded articles (though a lot of them still bear the marks of the users who did). However now I would really appreciate someone savvy with both sides of the lore. Ideally to help the rest of us get to grips with the changes, rather just stuffing it at the bottom, and bringing the edition war to a close.

1st, 2nd and 3rd edition lovers have come to a shared edition-less (or rather edition-inclusive) harmony but I for one would love some 4th edition lovers to join in and help us get rid of the back and forth. Stuff like Exarchs completely elude me still...are they demigods? are they hero-gods(a la greyhawk)?, chosen? proxies? These rebranded (?) aspects of lore like the primordials you mention don't need to be stuffed in a corner but rather explained and differentiated. Hopefully this PR run here and at wiards will draw some scholars out of the woodwork.

quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One

One comment from me, re. the FR wiki discussion of Ed's Candlekeep lore replies being considered or not.
One poster said: ". . . technically Ed's responses on the Candlekeep forums aren't officially published material."
Not so.
The original Realms agreement between Ed and TSR, which is the means by which the wider world got to see the Realms at all (beyond passing references in The Dragon and elsewhere, such as the late, lamented Gameplay magazine), is, paraphrased, this:
Ed is the creator of the Realms. Everything Ed publicly says or writes is canon, by definition, unless or until superceded by later material published by the copyright holder (so, TSR/WotC, but not a computer game license holder, unless Ed has blessed that non-WotC material as "canon"). So Ed's utterances at a GenCon seminar are canon, Ed's website columns are canon, what he says about the Realms in media interviews is canon, and what he says at Candlekeep is canon. Period.
Participants in the FR wiki can of course hold any opinions about the Realms or its lore they please, but there should be one thing that isn't open to debate, and that's Ed's status as the font of canon.
Disputing that is as disrespectful as telling Tolkien he isn't the authority on Middle-Earth. And is just plain wrong: that's the deal Ed made, so those are the rules, however any of us may feel about them. Your acceptance of that rule is implicit on your getting to experience the Realms at all.
I personally find the FR wiki very helpful as a reference, especially to later material that, as with Ed, doesn't "stick in my mind" as much as the older stuff, just because it hasn't happened around our home-campaign gaming table with Ed as DM. However, the flip side of that is that I have found a lot of homebrew lore from anonymous sources slipped in as canon, and when corrections have been made (not by me; I'm a passive reader only), the corrections have been overwritten and the spurious lore reinstated. This seems to have been rife in the past and happening less and less recently, though, and I applaud the current administrators.
There will always remain the awkward spots in every entry where the writer draws conclusions from incomplete lore, where this fact and that can be spun into X by one writer/designer/DM and into Y by another. The wiki will always be more valuable where extrapolations are identified as such, not presented with the same veneer of veracity that solid published lore is.
Right. Down off my soapbox. The wiki is worth arguing over because it's worth a lot to us all...
love,
THO



As the one who started that topic, you can probably guess I agree with you. Also, oddly, Cronje (the detractor you mention) used Ed Greenwood's definition of Canon as the rule, which kind of undermines his own point that what Ed says isn't law. In his defence, I think Cronje and almost everyone at the Wiki believe Ed's words to be the highest canon but we just haven't quite figured out how that jives with stuff said on Candlekeep and other online outlets (besides wizards.com), as opposed to published works.

If you don't mind I'll link your response into the Wikia forum and see if it can swing the argument? I have got a whole backlog of Candlekeep Responses ready to flood onto the wiki if the word is given, lots of articles I've have to hold back on sadly.

P.S. EDIT: Personally, I've often been worried about how people like Ed and other authors of the realms view the work going on at the wiki and this means some of us cleave very closely to the 'core' works to avoid over-stepping our bounds. It is really heartening to hear that you and possibly Ed approve of our efforts....the worry of litigation or being closed down is an ever-looming thing.

Moderator of /r/Forgotten_Realms

Edited by - Eli the Tanner on 21 May 2013 00:27:56
Go to Top of Page

silverwolfer
Senior Scribe

789 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  01:56:21  Show Profile Send silverwolfer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I need a book for prison city wheelon..that sounds so...awesome from the aspect of a storywriter, when it comes to faerun.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  03:45:31  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Eli the Tanner

I have got a whole backlog of Candlekeep Responses ready to flood onto the wiki if the word is given, lots of articles I've have to hold back on sadly.
For what it's worth: commentary in the form answers by Ed is something that's viewed as a resource (and in some cases a problem solver) by those of us that have collected lore and information for the Realmslore sub-forum at Loremaster.org.

Now that Loremaster has started its own wiki (complete with a Forgotten Realms section) I see every reason to carry that view forward.

I plan to encourage users whenever possible to find their way here and reach out to Ed to ask questions and use the answers we get to enhance the information on the Loremaster/Vorpal Games wiki.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).

Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 21 May 2013 03:49:51
Go to Top of Page

BadCatMan
Learned Scribe

Australia
342 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  05:53:21  Show Profile Send BadCatMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Woah, lots of responses. I'm glad to hear that people are using and enjoying it, despite the problems.


Thank you very much, The Hooded One. We've all been a little confused as to what really constitutes FR canon, as it's not, to my knowledge, been fully and officially written down anywhere easy to find. Statements on canon seem to be a lot of forum comments from various designers and general fan consensus, and it's something we're still sorting out. I believe Cronje's remark that Ed's responses "aren't officially published" are just that � not "published" and thus not admissable by our previous definition of canon. Cronje says immediately after that that Ed's responses "should be considered canon". I think now you've cleared that up, we'd all be in favour of accepting Ed's responses.


As wiki editors, it's not our place to pick and choose one edition over the other, what gets accepted and what gets left out. We just detail the official Realms as presented, whether we like it or not. Well, if we don't like it, we won't write it, but administrators still must keep the wiki organised and sensibly arranged. This is the same problem facing wikis of other franchises that have had great changes, such as Star Trek. I really dislike the Spellplague setting, but I still smooth out every new article from it, as the editor creating articles from recent novels is very good. I wrote up post-Spellplague Wheloon because I'm running Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave, and want to show the PCs the terrible future facing their home-town, what they're fighting against. So if you don't like it, don't read it, or read it and decide why you don't like it. If you want to see more classic Realms detailed, then please go improve and write the content. :)


Yes, the wiki was for a while not well policed, and saw unchecked plagiarism, uncited material, homebrew material, and some slapdash insertions. We still get that, but we current admins are actively dealing with it now, and looking back over old articles to check them. We delete or rewrite the copied stuff where we get a chance, provide citations, clean up and remove the crap. But it's an epic task and there's still a lot there. We now have a good community of talented editors who follow the rules, and five or six active administrators keeping an eye on things, but our time is limited and there are lots of pages.

So, part of this is a recruitment drive. Please come on down, help us tidy up, make the Forgotten Realms Wiki you want to see. Otherwise, I want to let everyone know that the FRW is getting better now.

And hey, we're doing so much better than the Eberron Wiki. :D

BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki

Edited by - BadCatMan on 21 May 2013 06:02:50
Go to Top of Page

Ze
Learned Scribe

Italy
146 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  11:30:46  Show Profile Send Ze a Private Message  Reply with Quote
BadCatMan, your wiki is one of my Chrome browser search engines.
Nuff said.
Go to Top of Page

Emma Drake
Learned Scribe

USA
206 Posts

Posted - 21 May 2013 :  23:58:24  Show Profile  Visit Emma Drake's Homepage Send Emma Drake a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I use the FRW for quick-checking facts when I'm not near my books. If I'm near my books, I utilize that resource first, then Candlekeep, then FRW.

Also, if I have come across something in a novel that is unfamiliar to me, I will often jump on the FRW to see if anything else has been written about it and where I might find that information. In that way it works as a quick and dirty index of sorts.

Keep up the good work!

"I am always here, all about you. You are never truly alone. I flow wherever life flows, wherever winds blow and water runs and the sun and moon chase each other, for there is magic in all things."

- Mystra (Ed Greenwood, Silverfall)
Go to Top of Page

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 22 May 2013 :  13:31:31  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The FR wiki is definitely one of my favorites and I make sure to visit often.
Good job and keep up the good work.
Go to Top of Page

silverwolfer
Senior Scribe

789 Posts

Posted - 22 May 2013 :  18:42:05  Show Profile Send silverwolfer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
do you get money from the ads on the wiki, or is it part of some sort of wiki farm and those that host it get the money?
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
8207 Posts

Posted - 22 May 2013 :  20:41:10  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I applaud your work. The number of times I've gone to the FR wiki for answers is enormous.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

BadCatMan
Learned Scribe

Australia
342 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2013 :  01:13:10  Show Profile Send BadCatMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That's good to hear, thank you.

The ads and stuff are all from the main Wikia site. We have absolutely no control over them, and Wikia gets all the money to keep running. If they're annoying you, then I recommend joining Wikia as an editor. Then you can choose the old, cleaner Monobook skin, and you won't see any ads. I use MB and don't see any ads at all unless I need to switch to compare page layouts. Even if you don't become an active editor on any of Wikia's wikis, it helps if you make small corrections and gives you more options for reading them.

Are there any features you want to see?

BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki
Go to Top of Page

Delwa
Master of Realmslore

USA
1255 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2013 :  02:05:57  Show Profile  Visit Delwa's Homepage Send Delwa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan
What do you think of the Forgotten Realms Wiki? Do you use it? Did you have problems with it in the past or do you have problems with it now? What do you want to see more of, or what would you like to see change? I welcome all reasonable opinions.


I use the wiki frequently as a jumping off point for research. In other words, I want to research Tyr, I look up the wiki entry for Tyr and check the references, then go to my books for more info. Occasionally, I use the wiki in game as a DM for a quick reference if the party does something unexpected and I need a quick check on lore.
In the past, I've had problems with the wiki only providing information on the current lore (that is, post-spellplague lore) but after pointing that out on this forum, the issue seems to have happily been resolved.
As far as improvements, nothing glaringly specific stands out. It's all a matter of material being added, and that's dependent on scribes writing articles, not adding features. I'm quite happy with the site and it's current features. Thanks for all your hard work.

- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!

"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus

My Forging the Realms Archives (Google Drive pdfs)
Go to Top of Page

MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe

688 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2013 :  02:55:57  Show Profile  Visit MrHedgehog's Homepage Send MrHedgehog a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I personally think it would be better if it contained different sources of information and how things were presented in different sources rather than just whatever is newest. For example, rather than just saying Cyric dwells in the "Supreme Throne" say he used to live in Hades and then Pandemonium. It is frustrating to see information omitted.
Go to Top of Page

BadCatMan
Learned Scribe

Australia
342 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2013 :  05:03:06  Show Profile Send BadCatMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Information is not actually omitted, just not filled in yet. Someone has filled out the infoboxes for Cyric and every other major deity with then-current basic information (from Faiths & Pantheons) and left it at that, which is fair enough. But no one's been interested in writing a complete, good Cyric article, which is also fair enough. If no-one wants to write about him, then no one will, and the article will remain rather bare and out-of-date.

Wiki work is largely a shotgun method of coverage. :) The fully detailed approach is slower and less common and depends on the writer's interests.

BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2013 :  05:40:52  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog

I personally think it would be better if it contained different sources of information and how things were presented in different sources rather than just whatever is newest.
THIS.

I think including everything is the best way to honor both a source of information and the Realms in general. This way you give the reader the opportunity to see several different takes on the Realms, and to pick and choose amongst some really great sources of information if they're looking for campaign ideas.

EDIT: If you haven't signed up for the Forgotten Realms Wiki, please consider doing so. I signed up recently and received a lot of help and encouragement right off the bat. Got to write up a little something about burials in Marsember, too.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).

Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 23 May 2013 05:43:54
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2019 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000