Talk:Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting

Stop Removing Notability Templates

Note to Rray: Please cease and desist from removing the Notability Templates from articles that do not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability, such as the article Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Unless you are prepared to actually add such sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would not revert my edits without good reason.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I received your message on my talk page. Leaving the same message in multiple places isn't necessary. Also, if the notability tag isn't correctly used or accurate, then I'll remove it at my discretion, regardless of who added it. I added a more accurate tag to replace it. Rray (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I must still request that the notability template is restored. We have had a discussion before; the citation of a trade award on its own is insufficient evidience of notability. Unless you can provide reliable secondary sources, your assertion that the article is notable is just your point of view; additional sources are required to support your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have this discussion with you on multiple talk pages. The article has an unreferenced tag, which accurately reflects your concerns that additional sources are needed. Rray (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Collins is on a disruptive campaign of trolling and vandalism to get rid of all fiction-related articles from Wikipedia, thus turning it into a redundant version of Encarta or Encyclopædia Britannica, resulting in Wikipedia becoming largely obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if he is working for either of those two entities.--Dark Prince Xizor (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the 4th Edition entry for the Forgotten Realms. Looking forward to talking with the project people. Jeremy Grenemyer (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

General copyediting

Whilst I am not "au fait" with the D&D universe, I did some editing with regards to Wiki links, Wiki mark up, punctuation, jargon etc. - I apologize in advance for any naive mistakes. --Soulparadox 19:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Section "Publication History" needs attention:

There's an issue with this sentence:

"Greenwood and Grubb did the design, while Grubb was responsible for the development, and Karen Martin did the editing."

That needs explaining. First, "did the design" is not encyclopedic writing. I'd fix it, but I don't know what "did the design" means in this case. Layout? Concept? Same thing with "development". Those words are so non-specific as to say nothing at all, so this sentence needs to either be elaborated on or deleted. Dementia13 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I can double check, but I assume that means under the credits, Greenwood and Grubb were both credit for design, and Grubb alone was credited for development. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, but that still doesn't answer the question of what "design" and "development" are intended to mean, in this context. Those are vague words that could mean almost anything. If the original source doesn't explain, then you have to cut this sentence, because all it does is repeat the previous sentence. But if you can fill in with some more complete information, it will help the article. Dementia13 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the original article elaborates on these terms, just lists them like credits, in the vein of "Design: Ed Greenwood and Jeff Grubb. Development: Jeff Grubb." 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Reception" section

I'm going to be blunt, so please don't take it as coming down too harshly on the article, but this section suffers from TMI. There's so much information puked out here that it's hard to pick out a piece and identify it; the original article may as well have been cut-and-pasted. A section like that creates a risk of the article being tagged for being overly dependent on a single source, and it's difficult and uninteresting to read. It's also far too dependent on quotations: "A nifty dungeon with a twist" and "a loony monster" are nice turns of phrase, but they don't make this a better article. It's better to take a "less is more" approach: pick out the three or four points that are most relevant to the article, paraphrase to condense some of the ideas, and discard the rest. Dementia13 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It probably does need a trim. If I remember correctly, the original article was at least two pages long, but still that doesn't mean we need to take this much of it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

His ideas are very good, but his language isn't always a joy to read, which in turn makes the article difficult for _your_ readers. Plus, look at the size of that section in relation to the rest of the article: it's the centerpiece. On one hand, that's justified, because it's probably the best source cited. On the other hand, if it's the centerpiece, why not polish it and make it a real showpiece? Dementia13 (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good points. :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)