Talk:Forgotten Realms

Novel list

I added an incomplete list of novels to the page. I got it from my very old (1995-97) Forgotten Realms webpage, which has been offline for a long time (if someone wants to pick up the project, let me know, I have lots of archives). Feel free to move the novels list to another place. I also have the author names for all the books listed. Sdibb 04:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Geography

The Faerûn page now includes a fairly complete high-level overview of the geography of the continent. — RJH 18:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Isn't Icewind Dale part of this setting also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.67.19 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2004 (UTC)

• • Yes it is. I have no idea which of the numerous FR articles mentions it, though (Faerûn? Toril? list of FR computer games?). The various 'top-level' FR pages could and should be merged together. -Sean Curtin 03:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Where would someone find a map of the Other Continents other than Fearun? I would like to have a map of Maztica.Solon Olrek 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in the Geography section on this page there is an internal link to the Great Wheel. However, this article redirects to Great Beijing Wheel. Was there an article on the Great Wheel cosmology before or has it moved at all? --RMPink (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating

I've started to fill out and add to the FR pages. Darkhold, Crown Wars, Illefarn, and Daggerford. I'd love some feedback.--RYard 17:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject

With a lack of a template I put the link to the WikiProject at the top of this page in italics so that it can be accessed more easily. -Erolos 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a template Template:Forgotten Realms project. Poulsen 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Cosmology

The section somebody just wrote about the change to the FR cosmology in 3E seems quite POV to me, he/she is clearly one of the people who doesnt like the change. The section needs to be reworked to sound more neutral, or include references to claims that many players dont use it etc, else it should be removed as it seems to stick out somewhat. -- Lewis 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this problem in the rework to the best of my ability. -- Lewis 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rework

I've tried to rework this article in to a more encyclopedic one. I'm not a complete expert on the Forgotten Realms, I've just used what I could find, so there is a lot of room for extra stuff still to be added or redone. Hopefully this will inspire people to help improve the article. -- Lewis 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed entry regarding "Gond." Such is written in an inappropriate context for Wikipedia, and should be included under a separate entry, not mashed in with the rest of the deities. Maelstrom58 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)maelstrom58

Another image

I uploaded an image from the WotC website, which I now realize I can't use since Wikipedia policy prohibits copyrighted images to be used in templates, even when it's fair use. I'm putting it here for a while in the meantime, just to keep the orphan bot from eating it... --Maggu 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since two of these (almost identical) images now exist, we should be responsible and nominate one for deletion. -- Lewis 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've switched to using this new image as its better tagged and ill nominate the older one. -- Lewis 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Novels and computer games

Someone has expanded the list of computer games. The purpose of the list was to show the most notable/important ones, not every FR game, which is given in the Main Article link. I propose we pick the 4-5 most important and give a summary description for each and ditch the others. The same goes for novels. For example these?:

1. Pool of Radiance - the first one
2. Neverwinters Nights - orginal one - first graphical MMORPG
3. Baldur's Gate - v popular
4. Neverwinter nights - v recent/popular/morpg

-- Lewis 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I went and reduced the list to these four, feel free to improve the summary descriptions I gave or substitute them for games you think are more notable/important to the Forgotten Realms, but I think this list shouldn't be longer than 4-5 entries. -- Lewis 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Demon Stone is not a role playing game! It's an action game (a fighter, really) set in the Forgotten Realms world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.198.224.77 (talk • contribs).

dagnabbit redirect?

Why does "dagnabbit" redirect here? Ben Tibbetts 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagnabbit. --Muchness 12:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; sorry. Ben Tibbetts 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Character Pole

I would like to see what other people's favorite characters from all of the Forgotten Realms books are. (Discussion on why HIGHLY encouraged.) Solon Olrek 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My favorite character would have to be Drizzt Do'Urden. I'm not sure if part of it is because he was the first Forgotten Realms character I was introduced to, but he also has a very good story to him. He started out in life in a horrible environment, but he didn't succumb to the darkness around him, but left it behind in search of a brighter future. He faced paramounts of persecution on his journey, and ended up traveling an unbeleivable distance to finally come to a place where he was free of his past and around people he considered to be family. Not to mention he is just plain AWSOME! Solon Olrek 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Goals for page

Eventually, as improvement for the book entries progresses, much of the content about the Campaign Setting books will be relocated to the existing Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting page, and this page will lose the D&D Books template. Serpent's Choice 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What content exactly? The FR is a collection of all the books published about it, I think it would be unwise to remove any information from this article at all. The books template yes, as this article isnt about a specific book, but it should include the history of what material has been published. Lewis 07:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit more that can and should be added to the article: discussion of real-world inspiration for campaign features, discussions of the geography redesign for 3E, information about how the TSR to WotC handoff affected the campaign setting. In an effort to ensure the article size is manageable, all I'm suggesting is that the next refactoring will probably result in a Main article: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting line, much akin to the existing ones for video games and geography. Serpent's Choice 07:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there's definatley more to be added to this article as you say. It would be a good idea to add a main article line directing to the FRCS article in the section about product history, but no material needs to be removed from that section at this time. This main FR article should talk about the setting as a whole while the FRCS article should just talk about the line of campaign setting books, which they do, so I dont see any need for changes at the moment, although I think I'll add in the main article link as you suggest. Lewis 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've actually put it in as a see also at the end of the history section, since that section doesnt just talk about the campaign setting books. Lewis 12:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What am I missing?

I have read the series of R.A.Salvatore several times, from Homeland and The Canticle through The Two Swords and on to Promise of the Witch King. Each time I reach this point I know I've missed some content, some book. Promise continues the adventures of Jarlaxle and Artemis Entreri presumably from the Servant of the Shard ending, and yet there are characters and inferences to other material between these two novels. For example, Entreri's personal battle of owning the jeweled dagger that steals the very life essence of its victim. His skin now holds a grey hue from having used the dagger on a Shade. Which text is this in? Athrogate is commissioned to follow the drow and human duo to Bloodstone Village, and speaks as if he is well aware of the prowess of our protagonists from experience. Jarlaxle, and Entreri by association, are now in the employ of two dragon sisters, Ilnezhara and Tazmikella, and yet I feel as if their current relationship could not have been thrown at readers assuming they will take the current situation for given, there needs to be some history that I am lacking. Please tell me the title of the novel I am missing, I presume containing Jarlaxle and Entreri's dealings with the town of Heliogabalus and the reason The Promise begins with the pair exploring the tower of Zhengyi. I apologize for my ignorance and thank you in advance for any fruitful response.

66.177.111.198 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)CMW

The one thing I've always wondered is who forgot them? The use of the New World to mean the Americas clearly says something about the viewpoint of the people to whom the New World was new. Who though forgot the Forgotten Realms?--Nickpheas 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We did, those of us living on Earth. Powers ^T 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting

I don't see how the book about the setting is notable enough in and of itself to warrant a separate article. Surely it can be described adequately here. Hairy Dude 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, maybe it is not notable enough in its own right. However the Forgotten Realms is more than what is described in that single/series book, and I don't really think the information contained in that article would be usefully placed here, or anywhere in fact. I think the whole line of articles that describe the irrelevant details of individual sourcebooks are somewhat pointless so I do not support the merging or these two articles.

I would prefer the other article deleted entirely, but there appears to be support for this aforementioned line of rulebook articles if the existence of the template at the bottom of each of the pages is anything to go by. --Lewis 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'I am also opposed to the merger of these two articles'. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting article is about a role playing book (of the same name) and the Forgotten Realms article is about the campaign setting itself. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting article should be confined entirely to the book (and should not refer to anything not contained within it).

The Forgotten Realms article should discuss the campaign setting as a whole (and therefore should only cover the role playing book called Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting in passing). The Forgotten Realms article should be covering all of the role playing products, the novels and computer games (most of which have nothing to do with this book).

Merger of Forgotten Realms articles should be left to the Forgotten Realms WikiProject or the Dungeons and Dragons Wikiproject as both of those projects understand what this article is about and how it relates to ones with similar (but not identical) subjects. Big Mac 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No merge. I agree with Big Mac.--Robbstrd 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not Merge There appears to me to be enough encyclopedic information in article Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting specifically about the products of this name, the different version and what is included in each that is too detailed to be placed in the main Forgotten Realms article here. FR Campaign setting should be a subarticle going into more detail on a topic that is summarised in FR main article. Both need a lot of work and probably some shuffling and consolidation between each other, but they do not need a merge. - Waza 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the last message left on this page by my acount. My brother decided to cause some mischeif amoung the articles I was watching and even preceded to change a few I was not. Anyway, about the current issue. I think that there should be a few links to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and that it should be left at that. This way, it doesn't clutter up the Forgotten Realms article, yet it isn't deleted, therefor provided interested readers the information they desire, should they follow the link that is.Solon Olrek 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a merger. Every WotC roleplaying product has it's own page with a very brief description of the contents of the book with things that wouldn't belong on a pages like this one, i.e. notes about errata corrections, trivial information about when it was written, who wrote it, or other circumstances related to publishing and or rules but not the fictional aspect. --Rezanow 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Merge but there is urgent work to be done on Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting to differentiate it from this article - an intro paragraph would be an excellent start. BreathingMeat 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a consensus that the articles shouldn't be merged I'm removing the merge tag. Lewis 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

criticism

it seems that Richard Baker has been under some criticism about the changes proposed in conjunction with 4th edition D&D towards Forgotten Realms.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?&p=14002775&postcount=19

should any of this be included on this page since he himself had to include mention of it in his own blog as a game designer?

shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need. Wikipedia isn't a play by play commentary on every little ever said about something and every little nit picking thing some fans may have about a subject. If we did that we'd end up with monstrous articles on any subject that related to the internet at all because there is always someone complaining about something. If a game magazine picks up the criticism in any great detail then it might be worth mentioning.--Crossmr 16:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dagnabbit

Dagnabbit redirects here. I searched for it looking for info on the mild oath, and apparently, after checking history, it's the son of someone from forgotten realms. However, dagnabbit isn't actually MENTIONED on the page, thus, it's a very confusing redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.87.59.8 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is unfortunately true of... almost all the redirects that point here, probably, because so many D&D-related articles were made into redirects (instead of simply being deleted) when they went through the AfD process. V2Blast (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms has been inactive for quite a while; most of the associated articles are flagged for cleanup, and may actually fail the inclusion criteria. For a proposal how to deal with this situation consistently, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms/Closure. Comments are welcome. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

Hey there. :) In our recent push to get D&D articles up to Good Article status, we have been successful with Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast. My original intention was to move immediately on to Dragonlance and then Forgotten Realms. However, looking at both of them (and Drow, the only other article in the 0.7 CD selection), I realize that they are both hardly referenced at all, and even then are referenced mostly to primary sources. I know that they both have as much potential to get to GA as the EGG and WotC articles, but due to lack of sourcing and relying on in-universe info, they are both a long way off.

What we need are reliable sources, with which to source the info in these articles. If you have a book or magazine or something and can do the sourcing work yourself, then great. If you can point me to a website, then I can do the work. We need creator interviews, product reviews, publishing and sales information for the product lines, etc. Feel free to discuss here, or on the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Focus

We should only have one of the logos, to meet the "minimum use" requirement for non-free images. Which should be kept? -Drilnoth (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I always liked the original. ;) If they are using the same one in 4E that they used in 3E, I guess we can use that one, otherwise I prefer the 1E/2E logo. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the original is better, too. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh... I really need to go back and get this one day! BOZ (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably up to a B now, or at least close. We're on the right track to getting it to GA. After I work on a few more deity pub histories, I'll have a look at some of the in-universe parts. We're badly in need of some creator interviews or something, which I think are probably easier to obtain than we're making it out to be. ;) Although it's a primary source, when I was working on Forgotten Realms Adventures yesterday, I noted that Jeff Grubb's introduction had a few paragraphs on the creation of the setting and its transition to official game world, so I tossed those references in. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for some sources for the in-universe stuff, too. I think that that section can pretty much rely on primary sources if there are enough secondary sources in the article as a whole. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, especially if at least half of the article focuses on the setting's development, production, sales & reception, and licensing. BOZ (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reconstruction

Hoo, boy. In looking how we can rebuild this one, I'm looking at the lead first. Most of what's currently in the lead needs to get removed. Not necessarily removed from the article, but definitely removed from the lead. Maybe we could have a "conception" section (hey, see if Bilby is interested, after what he did with kender?) for a lot of that, but that's way too much background story for the article's overview/summary. After gutting the lead, we could cut it down to something like this, and rebuild it from there:

The Forgotten Realms is a campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy role-playing game, created by Canadian author and game designer Ed Greenwood. Commonly referred to by players and game designers alike as simply "The Realms", it is one of the most popular D&D settings, brought about largely due to the success of novels by authors such as R. A. Salvatore and numerous computer role-playing games such as Pool of Radiance, Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights. The primary focus of the setting is the continent of Faerûn, part of the fictional world of Abeir-Toril, an Earth-like planet with many real-world influences. The Forgotten Realms is currently one of only two campaign settings, along with Eberron, for which official Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast is still creating new material.

According to the creators, the "Forgotten Realms" is the name of an imaginary fantasy world that exists somewhere beyond our own world. It is described as a world of strange lands, dangerous creatures, and mighty deities, where magic and seemingly supernatural phenomena are quite real. Ostensibly, once upon a time, our Earth and the world of the Forgotten Realms were somehow more closely connected. As time passed, we, the inhabitants of planet Earth, have mostly forgotten about the existence of that other world -- hence the term "Forgotten Realms".

The rest of the lead is mostly in-universe material that we could dump into another section for now to work on later. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you moved that to the same spot I was thinking of putting it. :) BOZ (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the History section, I think the best thing to do here would be to reorganize it by edition, like I do with my deity/monster publication histories. :) First section would be a "pre-history", that is detailing when Ed was using it as a setting for writing stories, turning it into a setting for his D&D game, publishing articles in Dragon, and then selling the thing to TSR. Then we'd have a 1st edition section, which would talk about the grey box release and Darkwalker on Moonshae (official FR products, now), moving into the first set of Companions of the Hall novels, and the Gold Box games, and the beginning of the setting's popularity (I think a lot of people forget that the setting really got going in 1E). 2E came around shortly after that, and began with Forgotten Realms Adventures and the The Avatar Series and then the game exploded with a shitload of accessories, modules, and boxed sets, and many more novels and computer games licensed, culminating in Baldur's Gate. 3E starts with the new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardcover (the previous two were boxed sets), going into products released for that edition, and getting into Neverwinter Nights. 4E would be as it is, taking us into today. 2E should almost certainly be the largest section, because that was the height of the setting (and the campaign setting craze in general). Right now, there aren't many products mentioned, perhaps largely because of the lack of 2E support Wikipedia has gotten in terms of articles about books. I've written a few lately and there were a few already and I'll probably do more later, so maybe we need a Category:Forgotten Realms books (or something else to clearly distinguish it from Category:Forgotten Realms novels, which would take boxed sets into account without being as vague as "products"). BOZ (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds excellent! I've reworked the lead, and can take a look at the history section soon unless you want to (by "soon" I mean either in a few hours or tommorrow; I need to take a break for now). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've created the category and will populate it momentarily. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good deal. :) I'm going to proofread/copyedit the history a bit, but I don't want to rework it yet because there's too much important stuff missing. ;) Have at it! BOZ (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start later/tomorrow. Also, I reverted the addition of "is one of two settings still actively supported...," with a reason in the edit summary. If you think it should really be in there, though, go right ahead. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, bye-bye. ;) I just finished the proofread/copyedit the history thing. BOZ (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to use this site (bookmark it!) to help me get the product listings right... since there were so very few 1E products for FR, I'm going to list most of them. For 2E I'll have to be more selective. Will get to that in a few minutes. :) BOZ (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bookmarked. Out of curiosity, do you know why the URL is "Home.flash.net"? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea! BOZ (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added all the officially FR 1E products that I am aware of. Obviously, since we are talking about approximately a two-year span, there weren't many. But there you go! The few items that don't have articles probably should, but hey. You can mess around with that section if you like, while I toss up some of the 2E stuff. BOZ (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on working on this article some more in the near future. :) BOZ (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No rush. I'll help you out once the Gen Con and Gary Gygax reviews slow down a little. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Second edition products

I put most of the gaming products up through 1993 into the article. I'm not sure what else needs to be mentioned, although I'm sure Faiths & Avatars is definitely one of them. Here is a list of what I did not include; anything you feel needs working in, go for it. :) BOZ (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxed Sets

• 1104 The Ruins of Undermountain II: The Deep Levels (1994)
• 1109 City of Splendors
• 1111 Elminster’s Ecologies (1994)
• 1120 Ruins of Zhentil Keep (1995)
• 1121 Spellbound (1995)
• 1142 The North
• 1147 Arcane Age: Netheril: Empire of Magic (1996)
• 1159 Lands of Intrigue (1997)
• 9561 Empires of the Shining Sea (1998)

Accessories

• 9430 Elves of Evermeet (1994)
• 9475 The Seven Sisters (1995)
• 9487 Giantcraft (1995)
• 9491 Pages From the Mages (1995)
• 9492 Wizards & Rogues of the Realms (1995)
• 9509 Warriors & Priests of the Realms (1996)
• 9547 Cult of the Dragon (1998)
• 11316 Demihumans of the Realms (1999)
• 11430 Secrets of the Magister (2000)

• 2142 PG2 Player’s Guide to the Forgotten Realms Campaign (1993)

• 9401 TM4 The City of Waterdeep Trail Map
• 9402 TM5 Kara-Tur Trail Map

• 1165 Arcane Age: Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves (1998)
• 9558 Arcane Age: The Fall of Myth Drannor (1998)

• 8442 The Forgotten Realms Atlas (1990)
• 9410 Cormyr (1994)
• 9465 Book of Lairs (1994)
• 9474 The Moonsea (1995)
• 9520 The Vilhon Reach
• 9545 Prayers From the Faithful
• 9575 The City of Ravens Bluff (1998)
• 9589 Calimport (1998)
• 11348 Skullport (1999)
• 11393 Sea of Fallen Stars (1999)
• 11509 Drizz't Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark (1999)
• 11627 Cloak & Dagger (2000)

• 9525 Heroes’ Lorebook (1996)
• 9552 Villains’ Lorebook (1998)

• 9516 Faiths & Avatars (1996)
• 9563 Powers & Pantheons (1997)
• 09585 Demihuman Deities (1998)

• 9379 Volo’s Guide to Waterdeep (1992)
• 9393 Volo's Guide to the North (1993)
• 9460 Volo’s Guide to the Sword Coast (1994)
• 9486 Volo’s Guide to Cormyr
• 9524 Volo’s Guide to the Dalelands (1996)
• 9535 Volo’s Guide to All Things Magical (1996)
• 11626 Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II (2000)
• 9358 Aurora’s Whole Realms Catalogue (1992)

• 9489 Elminster’s Ecologies Appendix I (1995)
• 9490 Elminster’s Ecologies Appendix II (1995)

• 2104 MC3 Monstrous Compendium
• 2125 MC11 Monstrous Compendium (1991)

Adventures

• 9484 The Sword of the Dales (1995)
• 9485 The Secret of Spiderhaunt (1995)
• 9488 The Return of Randal Morn (1995)

• 9519 Dungeon Crawl: Undermountain: The Lost Level
• 9528 Dungeon Crawl: Undermountain: Maddgoth's Castle (1996)
• 9538 Dungeon Crawl: Undermountain: Stardock (1996)
• 9562 Dungeon Crawl: Hellgate Keep (1998)
• 11622 Dungeon Crawl: The Dungeon of Death (2000)

• 9531 Four From Cormyr (1997)
• 9540 Arcane Age: How the Mighty Are Fallen (1996)
• 9544 Castle Spulzeer (1997)
• 9574 For Duty & Deity (1998)
• 9590 Kidnapped (1998)
• 11337 The Accursed Tower (1999)
• 11405 Wyrmskull Throne (1999)

• 9444 Marco Volo Departure (1994)
• 9450 Marco Volo Journey (1994)
• 9455 Marco Volo Arrival (1994)

Thanks! I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add articles for a few of the current redlinks, as well. I'll remove those which I'm definitely not going to write. Some, if you don't mind, may remain for a little while until I decide whether or not to deal with them. :) BOZ (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, if it's a redlink, then I own it and may or may not create an article in the near future. :) If I decide not to, I'll remove the link. Otherwise, carte blanche for all on the article. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest adding a little more information about the publication of maps for FR. In addition to the maps in the accessory boxes and campaign setting publications, the following were notable:

• Fonstad, Karen Wynn (August 1990). The Forgotten Realms Atlas. TSR. ISBN 0880388579. 8442.
• ProFantasy Software Ltd (1999). Forgotten Realms: Interactive Atlas (CD ROM). TSR. ASIN B00002EIWT. 11451.

Not sure if there is a source that discusses the map making for these publications. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know! The Forgotten Realms Atlas has its own article though, which discusses both. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin Story

As i recall from the second edition's campaign guide, Ed Greenwood said that the title "Forgotten Realms" came from the fact that the origins of most of the setting were found as several years' worth of idea scraps in a drawer at TSR, and given to him (Greenwood) as a project to be converted into a new setting. Having played in first edition, i do not believe that the setting existed before second that i know of. Anyway, the idea was that all these ideas had been forgotten in this drawer until someone found them one day, hence they became the "Forgotten Realms". The book in question belonged to a very dear friend of mine whom i do not currently have ready access to, as he lives several states away, can anyone independently verify this as i wait for his answer? dunerat (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Including Link to Forgotten Realms Wiki?

Hello! Recently the link to the Forgotten Realms Wiki has been removed by Nikkimaria based on the WP:ELNO, specifically point 12. Exempt from deletion according to that guideline are only links to open wikis "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors".

The Forgotten Realms Wiki has been alive and kicking since 2005, has 30,000+ articles, a number of active users and a steadily high acitivity, being currently rank no. 70 at Wikia with a WAM score of 97.37 (whatever that means). So my first thought was that the Forgotten Realms Wiki would be just such an exception. However it seems in general 100 or more active editors are expected, where the Forgotten Realms Wiki had about 60 active registered editors during the last month.

I would argue that having that link would still be useful for the readers of Wikipedia (which should be the main goal), because it is a valuable resource for people interested in the topic of "Forgotten Realms" and perfectly complementary to the topic's treatment at Wikipedia. (Forgotten Realms Wiki has the same emphasis on correct sourcing - albeit with primary sources - and covers everything that goes beyond Wikipedia's notability scope.) On the other hand the risk of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals, which seems to be the reason for requiring this "substantial number of editors" in the guideline, seems very small to me as the Wiki has existed and grown for 15 years and is going strong now.

What are other people's opinions? Thank you for bearing with me so far! Daranios (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look at this discussion further up at ELN relating to another Wikia wiki, you'll see that the rationale for having that exception at all is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but in the same discussion reasons for why this exception exists are also given. And as far as I can see all the underlying reasons given both there and in the linked original discussion apply to the Forgotten Realms Wiki. Daranios (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the link should be included. It appears to be the most complete source of fan information for the fictional universe, which should overshadow the activity statistics. It doesn't seem like there's any reason for it not to be included and it will help people find information that is not notable enough for Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason for it not to be included is that it fails ELNO. That it's a source of fan information is not a redeeming point. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Also both of you should be aware of WP:CANVASS. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what WP:CANVASS has to do with this. The message on my talk page was neutral and did not tell me to !vote a certain way. My vote was simply based on WP:IAR as well as WP:COMMONSENSE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that the argument for inclusion is not that is is a source of fan information. Rather that it is exactly the opposite of point 1 of what ELNO says an external link should not be: The Forgotten Realms Wiki does provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains. Daranios (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But because it is a fan wiki, the reliability of that information is questionable. ZXCVBNM, specifically VOTESTACK - selective notification. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The possible canvassing would be on me, being the invitor. I have only looked more closely at this policy now. I have unsucessfully tried finding more opinions on the WikiProject first, (It seems I misremembered and asked elsewhere, sorry. I have put the question there now, let's see if we get more input. Daranios (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)) and was looking for more opinions, because I think that two (opposing) opinions are somewhat lacking. I am also still convinced that ZXCVBNM falls under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" as he was part of several discussions about the proper relationship between Wikipedia and fan wikis. If I have been disruptive anyway, I apologize. Do you see a better way of getting more opinions?

About being a fan wiki again: The Forgotten Realms Wiki has using published information as a basis as its primary policy, thus it actively works on being reliable. Surely there are errors and mistakes, but I am convinced that they are few and far between. I am also sure that Wikipedia itself contains mistakes, Wikipedia working on exactly the same basis (fans of the project being authors and so on...), so I still see no reason to forbid that link on that basis. Daranios (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely Wikipedia itself contains mistakes, that's why we don't cite it as a source. (In terms of getting more opinions, generally that's why discussing at a central venue like ELN is better...). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, we did discuss it at ELN, and as far as I can gather we did end up with two opinions in favor and two opinions opposed to including that link. That's how we ended up here. We also got the suggestion to look at WP:ELBURDEN, or in other words, to answer the one question.
I am still convinced that inclusion of this link does improve Wikipedia, because it does provide a vast and - generally - reliable and correct source of information about the Forgotten Realms beyond what Wikipdia covers. (It also has nothing to do with WP:OR, because it's not used to reference anything, just a place with more.) I am sure there are users of Wikipedia who want to go beyond what is present in this article. I am happy to expand on this if necessary. Do you see this as wrong?
On the other hand what would be the drawbacks of have that link? That that wiki could provide non-reliable information. And that it might become a source of spam or problematic content some time in the future. I have given reasons why I think both risks are low. Did I miss other points? Daranios (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I still hold that the answer to the 1Q in this case is no. It's not a link I would like to see promoted, given the current guidance at EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to give your reasons why you see the answer as no? Daranios (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We are deliberately very careful about the number and type of external links included under our guidelines, as we're not intended to be a directory for all websites that might be of interest to people reading a particular page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not even a few (in this case more than one) which, to quote WP:EL "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as [...] amount of detail"? But I guess I am repeating myself now. Could you be so kind, if you come upon a way to involve more Wikipedians in this question without canvassing, to let me know? Thanks a lot! Daranios (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As no new opinions have been forthcoming for quite some time, I have reinstated the external link based on the current slight 2-to-1-opinions in favor here (or 3-to-2 in favor when including Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?). If there's a better way to deal with that, or how to get more opinions, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The ELN discussion did not find consensus in favour of including this link. You can either restart discussion there, or open an RfC to seek additional input. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Allright, I guess I'll start with trying to restart the discussion at ELN first. Maybe you can help me out: Do I republish the archived discussion, or just link there? Should I inform the editors involved in the past discussion? May I inform ZXCVBNM, or would you consider that canvassing even though they are obviously interested in the subject? Daranios (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest just linking there and pinging previous participants. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. For the sake of documentation and as a service to new readers of this discussion, here is a link to a previous discussion on the Notice Board about the same issue: Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?.

It is also linked in the discussion above, but is very hard to spot. so here it is for everyone to see and read. RhinoMind (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing information

Waterdeep#Government mentions "The Four", which redirects here. The problem is, "The Four" are mentioned nowhere in this article. By the way, I added the appropriate template to that redirect; whoever fixes this problem will need to remove it. ZFT (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect to the Waterdeep#Government for the time being. Is that acceptable to all? Daranios (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The same is unfortunately true of... almost all the redirects that point here, probably, because so many D&D-related articles were made into redirects (instead of simply being deleted) when they went through the AfD process. Very few of them actually have that content mentioned in this article, especially more than just in passing. V2Blast (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Forgotten Realms

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist: 2 months without activity. Please improve this article and bring it back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that since it was accepted as a Good Article in 2009, Wikipedia standards have changed. The article is full of fictional cruft, with "The World" section being largely in-universe. Much of the "History" section is also just a timeline of releases rather than putting things in context. It strikes me as C-class at most and would need a significant amount of work to reach modern Good Article standards._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sariel Xilo and I have been working on improving the article; we will see what we can do with it. BOZ (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a careful read of the article last night and it satisfies the good article criteria in that it is:

1. Well written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

If an editor is going to call for a reassessment then one would think it would be incumbent on that editor to specify which criteria the article does not meet, and why. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. 38 of the 77 references in the article—just under half—are primary sources: rulebooks, storefronts, product databases, interviews, and so on. Those sources also tend to get used repeatedly. Plenty of sentences and entire paragraphs, particularly about in-universe subjects and product releases, are entirely unreferenced. This article should be overhauled and based primarily on what reliable, third-party published sources have written about the subject. It's fine to fill in some minor non-controversial details with primary sources, but right now this is more of a Wikia fan page than a Wikipedia Good Article. Woodroar (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed a few of the primary sources that were redundant to non-primary sources, and will try to find some non-primary sources to add to what is already there and/or replace more of the primary sources. I also removed some of the unsourced information, particularly the basic listings of products without context. I will see what else I can do with it this morning. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Some work has gone into the article over the past month. Does anyone have any suggestions on what else needs to be done as far as improvements? BOZ (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There are still huge sections of text in the Creative origins and Settings sections supported largely by primary sources, and much of the Publication history section is supported by industry sources. I also see a handful of "academic" sources that are cited here but essentially nowhere else online, including by other reliable sources. Are there actually so few truly independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; I accept that this one is probably beyond my ability to fix at this time or in the foreseeable future. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a bummer, to be sure. I've loved the setting ever since I got the 1987 "Grey Box" a few years after its release. I've been looking for sources and it seems like the renaissance we're in has improved mainstream coverage of the game itself, but it's all surface-level coverage that ignores the settings. Woodroar (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Chultan Peninsula" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chultan Peninsula. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Chultan Peninsula until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Elminster sources

Hello Piotrus! You have removed the sources for Elminster that I had added before because they are supposedly fake. Let's please work out why you think that or where I made a mistake. I can assure I've made those additions in good faith.

• For Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore I had looked a Google Books here. A search for "Elminster" currently reveals four pages where he is mentioned, unfortunately without giving page numbers. One of those states that Elminster and Gandalf conform to the same type.
• CBR: The whole article is about Elminster, with the name even being part of the URL, I cannot really see where the problem lies. To quote a line: "Intentionally drawing inspiration from mythical and literary figures like Odin, Merlin and Gandalf, Elminster is the Forgotten Realms’ gray-bearded, pointy hat wearing, pipe-smoking, immortal sage."
• Heroes' Lorebook: I'll look into detail another time. But the Wikipedia article tells us Elminster is in that book (and how would he not feature there?) AND he appears on the cover! A am baffled. Daranios (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I did look at Heroes' Lorebook again. First, I forgot to provide a page number when adding that reference. So what did you refer to with "the linked page doesn't even mention the subject (!)"? Second, as expected Elminster does have an entry in the Heroes' Lorebook, pages 48-50, which does have all the content it had referenced, meerschaum pipe and all. So, please let me how you came to the conclusion that the references were "false" and "fake". Daranios (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for Piotrus, but Heroes' Lorebook is a primary source and that Wizards book was written by "a freelance writer" for a sketchy self-pub publisher, and isn't actually cited anywhere. As for CBR, I can't help but notice that WP:CMC/REF specifically calls out 2 of their columns as reliable, but not the entire site. And WP:VG/S lists other sites by the same publisher as unreliable or inconclusive. (See discussion here.) So I don't think these sources meet WP:RS. Woodroar (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

General reminder that primary sources are allowed for plot & character details (WP:PRIMARYCARE). I would also say that a publisher can have sites that are considered reliable (ex. AV Club) & not reliable (ex. Jezebel). I think CBR is a RS. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, sure, but for basic factual claims. We shouldn't be writing entire sections of the article around them. Reliable, third-party sources should always guide our content, especially when it comes to disputed content. And when sources are disputed, editors who want to use them should take it to RSN. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Woodroar! I think Piotrus was coming from quite a different direction as "all refs for Elminster were fake and didn't even mention him" is quite a different critique than that the source is primary or the reliability is in question. As for your critique, I agree with Sariel Xilo. What can be more reliable about a fictional character than a primary source about it? Primary sources with regard to notability are an entirely different matter of course, but that fortunately is not the issue here. Also, the one primary source was used for half a sentence, so that should not be a big issue here. I wouldn't have thought that any of this was controversial, but we will see.

Is Adams Media really a self-publishing platform? Daranios (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear that we should be basing our articles on independent sources. We can fill in the gaps with primary sources, but third-party sources should always be guiding our content and highlighting what's important enough to mention. Otherwise, articles like this would just be one massive summary of every FR sourcebook. I mean, this is one of the main reasons why the article was delisted as a good article.

As for Adams Media, it was a quick-turnaround non-fiction (mostly self-help) publisher that relied on amateur freelance writers. They also published Vampires: The Myths, Legends, and Lore by the same author. I'm not able to find any credentials or background or citations that would indicate the author is a reliable source. I'll walk back the claim that it was self-published, because I'm no longer sure that's the case. Note that S&S acquired Adams Media in 2016—two years after the source in question was published—but it's not like they've moved on to publishing scholarly works. It's a lot of pop schlock: cookbooks, self-help, dream interpretation, quote collections, etc. In other words, they don't exactly have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Woodroar (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And the manual of style is also clear that you can use primary sources for plot details (MOS:FICTIONPLOT & MOS:PLOTSOURCE). Secondary sources are encouraged for adding contextual details & analysis but not required in a plot section. So in the case of Elminster, we can use a primary source for his pipe or his magical background but to compare him to other fictional wizards (Gandalf, Merlin, etc) it requires a secondary source (and fortunately, io9 works as a source for this). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I misclicked the sources. I do agree now that they mention him in said comparisons, I am not sure how I missed it in the first place. User:Woodroar, are you saying that Simon and Schuster, publisher of Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore, is a self-publisher? Anyway, now that we have some sources that do compare El to Gandalf and others, what we need is perhaps the most important thing (for this entire section): a reliable, independent source that lists 'main/important/notable/whatever characters from Forgotten Realms'. We, the editors, can't decide who they are. We need sources to tell us that, preferably independent (i.e. not from DnD books themselves). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that when Adams Media published Wizards in 2014, it wasn't a particularly reputable publisher. That's not to say that they were disreputable, only that I'm unable to find reliable sources citing their books. And it's easy to see why, because the author of Wizards was a freelance writer and not an expert of some kind. Simon & Schuster acquired Adams Media in 2016, and they're still producing pop books that probably make a lot of money but aren't cited by reliable sources. But really, the whole Simon & Schuster part is irrelevant. Woodroar (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the other book by the same author and pulisher that Woodroar mentioned, Vampires: The Myths, Legends, and Lore, is cited a few times by books from different publishers, including a paper from the Journal of English Studies (no idea, how reputable that is). I think its a popular book, not a scholarly one, but that wouldn't disqualify it. Anyway, it's not really relevant here any more, as Sariel Xilo has found different sources. - Thanks a lot for that! Daranios (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Dragonspine Mountains" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dragonspine Mountains. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Dragonspine Mountains until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Catti-Brie claiming sexist

Since I was reverted, need some input here. The article now reads: Some critics have highlighted her introduction in The Icewind Dale Trilogy as limited and sexist.

A woman who has published a total of one article at Tor titled Searching for Body Positivity in Fantasy rants about how happy she was when she found a book where a fat woman was labeled as attractive, then whines about how in various other books the women who are beautiful are not fatties like her. She claims this is clearly sexism. The bit she quotes from the book simply calls Catti-brie "beautiful", there no description about her body parts or whatnot, so how is that "sexist"? [1]

The other part I tried to remove [2] is the part calling her limited. The reference doesn't say "limited", she was a main character with an important job, that clearly mentioned in the io9 blog article, but the critic complains she only "gets only a few dozen lines". Based on this single critic saying that, should it state that "some critics" instead of "one critic" complains she is "limited?" Dream Focus 19:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Whether the comments from the Tor.com opinion piece could be objectively considered reflective of critical consensus or otherwise is a matter of debate, though the retrospective reviews for The Icewind Dale trilogy novels by the io9 blog posts certainly support the notion that the characterization (or lack of) of female characters like Catti-brie are problematic for the series within that time period, so "limited" is not an unreasonable conclusion based on a reading of the sources. I think it is bad form to remove them unless they are actually irrelevant to the topic at hand or are already vetted as unreliable sources like Gamerant (which I did remove), but rewriting the prose to properly frame the viewpoint in a neutral manner is certainly reasonable. Haleth (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• A search through Wikipedia reliable sources doesn't find anyone else ever calling the character sexist. As for the part about saying her character was "limited" at first appearance, is there a second reference anywhere that complains about this, or it just one rant somewhere? Dream Focus 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen one sentence about Cattie-Brie in this thesis, which does not directly confirm but maybe complement her supposedly "limited" presentation. One way we could rephrase (if it is not too long, and surely could be improved somehow):

Rob Bricken argued that her characterization in The Icewind Dale Trilogy is limited, while Aidan-Paul Canavan maintained that she becomes a 'heroe' only in later novels.

References

What does anyone think? Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun article

I've been looking around for reliable sources for the character for a long time now, with Google Searches turning up very little usable material: secondary sources mostly talk about his Demon Stone appearance in passing, and he is barely covered even in primary sources. It doesn't help that he's been killed off in-universe (with no plans of bringing him back that we know of), and doesn't look like he'll be playing a role in any upcoming D&D media adaptations, which often means renewed coverage (Bruenor and Catti-brie being prime candidates of such a possibility to split and spin-off following Dark Alliance's release if the coverage appears). So, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, I propose that the character's article be merged into this article's characters section, instead of it being subject to an inevitable AfD. Haleth (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As things are now, I support a merge. There are secondary sources and content to preserve, and while I would be happy to see the article stay, I am not sure it would survive an AfD discussion. I trust Haleth's search, but I am still wondering: Are there no reviews of the books where the character features around? Maybe they exist only in print and then are very hard to find...

I wonder, if the good work done in the character section is continued, if there will be a point that makes recreation of the List of Forgotten Realms characters possible. Daranios (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly hoping that the list can be recreated at some point, and the more good sources we can find the better! BOZ (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. One less dramu for the AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request

Heyo Sariel Xilo, some questions as usual:

• TSR felt that the Forgotten Realms would be a more open-ended setting than the epic Dragonlance setting [...] What's meant by epic here? Is it supposed to be read in the colloquial sense as "awesome", or that Dragonlance is an epic? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Daranios, tweaked by me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Italicisation: Has there been any discussion as to when to italicise Forgotten Realms (as in the title) and when not to? I assumed that the name was italicised when it is being referred to as intellectual property, and not italicised when it is being referred to as the setting (in-universe, if you will). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's been an discussion. Forgotten Realms isn't an in-universe title as far as I know. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I'll get rid of the italics (including the title) in that case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Forgotten Realms is a campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy role-playing game. Formatting preserved. To satisfy MOS:SEAOFBLUE, could "fantasy" be delinked or combined with "role-playing game"? The redirect Fantasy role playing → Role playing game exists. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems to makes sense to me. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• before creating a group known as the Knights of Myth Drannor in Shadowdale. What's Shadowdale? A city? Town? Kingdom? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the Fandom Wikia, it's a "farming community" which includes a town named Shadowdale and the larger surrounding region. I'm not the most familiar with Forgotten Realms lore but I can try to track down an older sourcebook to verify. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd have said a small (14,000 inhabitants by one description) self-governed nation covering a valley with the same name. (And a farming community, and the name of the "capital" town.) Daranios (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I'll just say "region" in that case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• [...] and chose the Realms as a ready-made campaign setting upon deciding to publish AD&D 2nd edition. I tentatively decapitalised edition through the entire article, but let me know if it should stay capitalised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Like the italics above, I don't think there's any consistency when edition is capitalized. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. As far as I can tell the book titles themselves don't state which edition they're for (looking at the PHB for 5e as an example), so I'll keep them decapitalised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• He noted that TSR altered his original conception of the Realms being a place that we could travel to from our world [...] I'm thinking this should be rephrased so that MOS:WE can be avoided. Maybe He noted that TSR altered his original conception of the Realms being a place that could be accessed from Earth? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "[c]oncerns over possible lawsuits (kids getting hurt while trying to 'find a gate') led TSR to de-emphasize this meaning." Just asking for confirmation here that this is a complete, full sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source (Dragon #244) to verify but maybe BOZ does? Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The full sentence from the magazine said: "In Greenwood’s original conception, Earth’s fantastic legends derive from a fantasy world that we‘ve now lost the way to-hence, the Forgotten Realms. “Concerns over possible lawsuits (kids getting hurt while trying to ‘find a gate’) led TSR to de-emphasize this meaning,” he says." BOZ (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Keeping as is. Many thanks, BOZ. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Links to modules: How should link text to the module pages be rendered? Their article titles don't include the product code (which implies that they're not part of the actual product titles), and I'm not seeing how mentioning the product codes in this article gives readers any particular knowledge. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Products codes went out of style & the publisher eventually stopped using them. I typically don't include them but I don't think that something the D&D project has formalized as an official style. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removing product codes; they're still present in their own articles, but I think mentioning them here is trivial at best. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The compilation module Desert of Desolation [...] Emphasis in original. Any reason why this module doesn't have a code number before it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Moot. Removing all product codes from titles anyway. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The boxed set Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms was released in 1988, giving details of the lands of Kara-Tur which designed for use with the 1986 book Oriental Adventures, and were now officially placed in the Forgotten Realms world.

  This paragraph needs to be rewritten; were implies that at least two things became canon. Are they the boxed set and the 1986 book? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The fictional region of Kara-Tur was introduced in the Oriental Adventures (1985) sourcebook. Later, the region was expanded on & added to the Forgotten Realms setting as new location within the world via the 1988 boxed set. The boxed set was designed to be used with the original sourcebook. The boxed set was what made it cannon to the Forgotten Realms. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Reworded paragraph to state as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• To transition the Forgotten Realms from first edition AD&D rules to second edition AD&D rules [...] With the exception of some updates to lore, aren't editions basically rulesets? If yes, there's no need to mention rules. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Sometimes there are in-universe lore explanations for the mechanical changes between editions (like how magic works). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I substituted an instance of AD&D with "ruleset", so that should make it apparent what it is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• [...] and spread into a three-adventure "Avatar" series [...] Any reason why Avatar isn't being italicised? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be italicized. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• TSR adjusted the timeline of the Forgotten Realms by advancing the calendar one year forward to 1358 DR and this period was known as the Time of Troubles. When was the Time of Troubles? 1358 DR onwards or the interval between 1357–1358 DR? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the Fandom Wikia, it was just the one year. If anyone has access to The Grand History of the Realms, that would probably be the best primary source for verification. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm this based on the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition, p. 271. Daranios (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Reworded to make it clear the term applies to the time gap. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• This updated the Forgotten Realms to the newest rules system [...] Emphasis added. What is this referring to? The first cycle of annual book publishing? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume it is referring to the sentence before it which highlights a campaign book, a player's guide, and an adventure. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced This with These books. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• De Launay characterized Jarlaxle as an independent character [...] Emphasis added. Who's De Launay? This is the first time they're mentioned. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to be ping Daranios on this one because I think they did the Jarlaxle merge after the AfD. It might have been text copied over from the deleted article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Caroline de Launay wrote an Anglistics PhD thesis which has characterization of Jarlaxle. I have added her short description, which was missed by the editor performing the merge of Jarlaxle here. I am not completely sure if this is the best description, more about her can be found at the first hit of this Google search. BTW, thanks for the detailed work on where to improve! Daranios (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Daranios. You're very welcome! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The setting also gave TSR a new way to market its Battlesystem rules, which it had supported with the Bloodstone adventure sequence that began with H1: Bloodstone Pass (1985), and the last two books of this series, H3: The Bloodstone Wars (1987) and H4: The Throne of Bloodstone (1988), were explicitly placed in the Forgotten Realms.

  Formatting removed. I'm not 100% sure what were explicitly placed is acting on. If it's just the last two books of this series, the sentence should be broken up some more. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence probably should be broken up. The first two modules were published before the Forgotten Realms as a setting. The fourth one already has the Forgotten Realms logo on the cover. The introduction to the third one explains: "We should also point out that the BLOODSTONE PASS saga takes place in the FORGOTTEN REALMS Fantasy Game Setting, new from TSR, Inc. A certain amount of retrofitting was needed to integrate this series into our new official game world". (And the countries of Damara and Vaasa, setting of all four modules, were incorporated into the Forgotten Realms.) Daranios (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I separated the sentence into two. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• [...] a story of the gods being cast down was planned from the top-down management [...] Emphasis added. What is meant by "top-down management"? A chief officer planned the story and got their subordinates to expand on it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Going to ping BOZ again because I know they have this book series & I don't have access to this source. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual quote from the book says of the Avatar series that "Unlike the “underground conspiracy” of Dragonlance, this event was planned from the top-down by management." If you have questions about the meaning of what is actually written in "Designers & Dragons", you can always ask User:ShannonA directly. :) BOZ (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've added "by" in to make it more natural, though I think it could stand to be a little less colloquial. I'll leave a ping for ShannonA here, but otherwise I'll consider this to be resolved once I'm wrapping up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. There's not much else I can do here, so I'll consider this resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• This was followed by FR2 Moonshae in 1987 [...] Strong emphasis added. Just confirming that this is referring to Waterdeep and the North. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Daranios (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removed some missed product codes while I was at it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Starting in 1979, Greenwood published a series of articles that detailed the setting [...] Already edited, not really a copyedit issue. Any source for when Greenwood stopped publishing for the magazine? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Did he ever stop? I just had a look, and found the last article of Greenwood's column "Eye on the Realms" is right in the last Dragon magazine issue no. 430 (2013). I have seen one article by him in the following Dragon+ magazine, as well as several reprints of old ones there. Daranios (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Again, not a copyedit issue, but might be something to include. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty, good to know, Daranios. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• [...] in The Crystal Shard, Wulfgar's combat prowess is to an extent that along with Drizzt and his magic panther Guenhwyvar [...] Emphasis added. What is meant by the italicised part? His prowess is equal to Drizzt and Guenhwyvar combined? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this only means that the combat prowess of Wulfgar, Drizzt and Guenwyvar together was so great that... The original source says "Drizzt and Wulfgar are so preternaturally badass they beat 25 giants by themselves (well, with help from Drizzt’s magic panther Guenhwyvar..." Daranios (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I used "immense", but perhaps another qualifier would work better to describe Wulfgar's combat prowess. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sariel Xilo, I've looked over the article and have made a few more tweaks. I'll consider the request to be complete soon if I don't hear from you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks for taking the time to do the review. Apologies for the delayed response; I've been offline while ill. I'm going to tag a few other editors who might have more insight and I'll take a look at the above. Pinging: @BOZ, Daranios, Piotrus, Woodroar, Dream Focus, and V2Blast: Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have any more suggestions than those I've made in previous Talk sections. I think this article needs more than GOCE, I'm afraid. I'm talking a rewrite from the ground up based on reliable secondary sources, not primary books, storefronts, interviews, listicles, etc. We also need to summarize sources in our own encyclopedic writing rather than rely on pull quotes that verge on COPYVIO and NPOV violations. But that's my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel better soon! BOZ (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sariel Xilo, I echo what others said here (get better soon too :D). Also see my comment below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, everyone (hopefully you're feeling much better Sariel Xilo). I'll make changes to what I've got for now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sariel Xilo, if there's nothing else, I'll consider the request to be complete. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering everything to be done on my end. Best of luck with nominations! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Minsc not mentioned yet, same for Erevis Cale at AfD

Minsc is possibly notable although I haven't looked at the reception section there in much detail. Anyway, the odds are he can be mentioned h ere. Erevis Cale, I am not so sure, and he is getting AfD right now. Nothing to rescue there, however (no reception or analysis). All other entries in the Category:Forgotten Realms characters are notable or redirect here anyway. Good job expanding the list here with notable entries grounded in real world significande, folks! Maybe this article can be GAed (the history section needs beefing up with more refs, however). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we want to go into video game-only characters here though? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Minsc and company also appear in the Dungeons and Dragons comics which, to my understanding, parallel several of the major 5th edition adventures. He also seems to be at least mentioned in Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus and Murder in Baldur's Gate, establishing his existence in the table-top RPG, if we care of such things. So I'd say in total with regard to Minsc specifically, yes, let's include him. Daranios (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Anauroch" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anauroch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 22#Anauroch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Netheril

Netheril redirects here, but it's not mentioned in the article anywhere. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! I have changed the redirect to Netheril: Empire of Magic for the time being. There, Netheril is briefly discussed. Daranios (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The redirect has been shifted further to Faerûn. I am not so sure this is the better option, as the mention of Netheril there is currently very short, but it's one viable option. Daranios (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Athrogate" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Athrogate. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Athrogate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Abeir-Toril

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I really should've challenged the AfD few years ago - now that I look at it, there was not a single keep vote, just a split between deletes and keep/merge and keep/redirect. Only a single user provided some keep rationale (User:Daranios). The odds are this would've been deleted or force merged after an overtun... but shrug. This was kept, without even a merge discussion started. It hasn't improved, and still is a pure plot summary with no shred of evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. Time to remedy this one way or another. Perhaps User:BOZ could help merge some parts to Forgotten Realms or suggest a different redirect target. Or maybe (best outcome?) Daranios would like to add a reception/significance section based on the sources they claimed existed back then? But in the current form, if this is not improved to address the problem of not meeting WP:GNG, IMHO, this cannot stay. Also ping other AfD participants: User:Rorshacma , User:Necrothesp , User:TTN, User:SportingFlyer, User:Sariel Xilo. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of non-primary sources in the "Publishing history" section, which is also not written using in-universe style. If it is determined that this topic does not and cannot meet the GNG, then part of that text could be merged here as suggested. BOZ (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I see that Daranios did go ahead and start a reception section after this discussion was opened[3] so I would like to see if anything else can be done to improve the article before recommending a support or oppose to a merge. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For a start, this PhD thesis has about a page (non-continous) talking about (Abeir-)Toril, which should be used as is appropriate. I am short on time, hopefully I can comment more later. Daranios (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose a merge per the reasoning of Daranios. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I still hold to my argument in the last AFD. This really just the formal name of the location that the Forgotten Realms campaign setting takes place on and around (even the one source being used in the Reception section describes it as such), and both articles cover most of the same topics and material. So, there is really no need or justification for a split here. I do agree with BOZ above that any reliably sourced content regarding its publication history that is not already present in the main Forgotten Realms article should be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support (multiple merge targets) - If we decide to merge, I think the majority of the Fictional continents section should be moved to the source/setting book articles the material is from instead of to the FR Geography section (ie. Kara-Tur to Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, Maztica to Maztica Campaign Set, etc). Essentially, the FR Geography section would have a sentence or two about each continent and direct readers to the main setting book articles. I know during the 2020 AfD, Daranios said sources existed but I struggled to find them at the time of the AfD. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think this meets WP:GNG and should stay an article on that grounds. To find more secondary sources means a lot of work, as not only Abeir-Toril, and its usual synonym, Toril, but all the continents and locations which do not have there own article are in the scope of the topic. A lot of articles could use attention, and my time here gets more limited, so I plan to do some work, but can't promise much. Maybe Piotrus and others would like to help improve, e.g. with the secondary source I've already provided, and then we can have a look? Already, as BOZ has pointed out, we had the publication history section, and the whole Kara-Tur section is almost no plot-summary, and is mostly based on secondary source, so "still is a pure plot summary with no shred of evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG" is not accurate. So among other things the whole Kara-Tur section should be preserved in a merge, which would in my view already be too much for the Forgotten Realms article. In this regard, Sariel Xilo's suggestion of multiple merge target would be a solution. I prefer keeping this article for collective improvement, though. Daranios (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Daranios In general, the "too big for merge" argument misses the point that much of the content, here or there, is unreferenced plot summary fancruft. Regarding sources, the source for this i.e. this, mentions Toril rather briefly, in four sentences. The other thesis ([4]) has about as much content. Each does contain a sentence or two of analysis, but SIGCOV is very borderline. Overall, those are good sources, but if we prune fancruft to what we have referenced, there'll be very little left. Frankly, the analysis in both works boils down to "this setting is extensive and very well developed". I am afraid that is not enough to pass WP:GNG. As such, unless better sources are found, I still believe merge is the best outcome, as any loss is limited to unreferenced fancrufty plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: My "too big for merge" argument currently refers mainly to the Kara-Tur section. Please check it out. If most of it were to be merged to Forgotten Realms, as I think it should in case of a merge there, it in my view would feel to big for that article's structure. Otherwise, it would be nice if someone would help out with working in the relevant content of [said thesis. I plan to look for other sources. I expect many small rather than few big contributions, but we'd see if there was enough time. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: You wouldn't perhaps be able to access this paper? The abstract does not look too promising, but it's one of the Google Scholar hits... Daranios (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Daranios I have to go AFK and will check a bit later but don't we have access to CEEOL through the Wikipedia Library? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Daranios It's a good section, but per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara-Tur, seems mostly cobbled from mentions in passing. Why not merge it to Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• I was always leery about adding too much content from the setting into the article about the boxed set, and remain so now. Kara-Tur as a fictional setting appeared a few years before the boxed set and continued to be detailed long after the boxed set, so at most only a brief overview of the setting should be presented in the article about the boxed set in my opinion, and anything more is WP:UNDUE - I think it has too much about the setting already. BOZ (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, and also some of the commentary was made on the material before the boxed set came out. Similarly, Abeir-Toril goes beyond the Forgotten Realms as it also hosts the Al-Qadim setting. Don't get me wrong, I think merges to those targets would be okay, as the topics are closely related. But they are not perfect fit, whereas with Abeir-Toril as a topic there is not such a problem. That's why I think merges are a second-best solution to keeping everything here.

As for "seems mostly cobbled from mentions in passing": a) The usual, I am convinced that articles can be built up of different short treatments as long as those are not trivial. WP:N is not an end in itself, as no rule should be. We should look at why the rule has been put up. And that's "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". b) At least the Space Gamer article contains, depending on what you count, one or several pharagraphs on the continent of Kara-Tur. Daranios (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am going with oppose as well. In my opinion, Daranios has made a convincing argument that a worthwhile article can be constructed from existing secondary sources for Abeir-Toril. Haleth (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Allright, I have done what I wanted to do on the article for the time being. I have not searched all the individual locations in the article for both references and reception, but we have a not-so-small reception and commentary section now, as well as some commentary to individual continents. I still think that's enough for a stand-alone article. So can we close the discussion, or are there objections? Daranios (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unmentioned redirects

The following redirects are not mentioned in this article. This was generated by a the same script as Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#Incoming redirects, so may have some false positives, but still deserves looking at:

I've updated a handful redirects. It looks like most of these are locations so probably should go to Faerûn or Abeir-Toril. Many of the characters could probably be redirected to their publication source (such as various Drizzt characters going to those novels). I'm not super familiar with the FR lore minutiae so this isn't a project I'm going to take on. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Prespur" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Prespur has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24 § Prespur until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Icingdeath" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Icingdeath has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24 § Icingdeath until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Taulmaril" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Taulmaril has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24 § Taulmaril until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Selvetarm" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Selvetarm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24 § Selvetarm until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Evermeet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Evermeet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24 § Evermeet until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Simbul" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Simbul has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 25 § Simbul until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)