User talk:ChrisNichols

Welcome, Chris! Always great to have new editors, and to have one of the esteemed Creators here, it even better. :) Happy editing! -- Gonzoron 14:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hola Chris,

Great to see you here. Could you please go to Van Richten's Arsenal and clarify which parts you authored?

Thank you,

Robert (Cure)Cure 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Chris,

When you get a chance, take a look at our Levels of Canon page. Note that anything you wrote for the products you worked on that was ultimately not published gets the special designation of {{Potential Canon}}. Anything you created that was not intended for publication (Like the teeny tiny tales would be {{Homebrew Non-canon}}, like the rest of us.  :) May be difficult to sort out here and there, of course, so use your own judgement, but we're trying to clearly denote the canon, to avoid having a split wiki like Memory Alpha/Memory Beta (the Star Trek wikis), or forcing the reader to sort things out themselves by the citations and references (like wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki).

Thanks, Ron -- Gonzoron 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that Canon related tags, or at very least Canon and probably Potential Canon tags, should go at the top of the material. First, this gets them into first spot on the categories at the bottom as other Canon tags get added. Second, pages often end up with multiple levels of canon and if the first thing a reader sees is a Homebrew tag a reader might instantly dismiss it and move on rather than seeing that the article concerns canon augmented by homebrew.Cure 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, Mount Nirka. Having put it together, everything in it is in fact, to the best of my memory, canon, although I do need to back and reference it at some point. But by sticking the Canon tag at the bottom is not immediately evident and if someone where to add a line of homebrew at somewhere and would have to think to move the Canon tag to in addition to carefully making evident the limits of their own contribution. And frankly, for most new contributors, that is going to be beyond them. It took me quite a while to grasp the wiki language and I am long getting up to see on tagging.Cure 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts on this topichere. I was just trying to comply with Gonzoron's request that I add canonicity level notes to all the articles I'd added. --ChrisNichols 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, by creating a Canon section you have excluded the Statisitcs which are canon too. And in fact we have canon statisicts for a great many NPC so this needs to be done differently.Cure 14:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, could you please use the following tagline for my contributions from Mangrum's Teeny Tiny Tales of Terror collection? Thanx you. Best regards, RobertCure 03:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

<ref>Descriptive text from [[John W. Mangrum | John W. Mangrum's]] [[Teeny Tiny Tales of Terror]] project (contributed by '''cure''', from posts on the [[Cafe de Nuit|Fraternity of Shadows message board]].

</ref>

categorization guidelines

Hi! Apologies for the "spamming" but I'd like to invite all users to comment on Mistipedia_talk:Categorization_Guidelines if they are so inclined. If not, please ignore this. :) -- Gonzoron 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

welcome back

Hi Chris, nice to see you again. Quick thing: my intent with the "Native Monster" categories (like category:Native Monster of Forlorn) was to include creature races, not individuals. (individuals would go in the "Inhabitants" category, whether they were a monster or not.) The idea was that once those categories got well-populated, they would serve as a sort of random encounter list for the domain. But, I'm open to discussion, which is why I haven't removed your recently added NPCs from that category. What are your thoughts on the subject? -- Gonzoron 06:10, 26 July 2014 (MDT)

Hey, Ron! Nice to be back. As to the Native Monster categories, I figured that they served a random encounter list purpose. I included the three ghosts because it would be perfectly reasonable to randomly encounter them as wandering monsters in and around Forlorn. I was basing having unique NPCs/monsters on the random encounter tables included in the bestiary sections of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths (I base most of my game design/play around Pathfinder these days). Any how, if you'd rather not have the NPC ghosts in the Native Monster section, that's perfectly fine and I'll remove them. Cheers! --ChrisNichols 15:11, 26 July 2014 (MDT)

No, you raise a good point. Upon further reflection, there's no reason not to include individuals that might be likely to be encountered like that on such a list. Especially since the monster types will naturally be categories, based on our conventions, and the individuals will be pages, so they'll be nicely sorted on the Native Monster Category page. What I'd like to avoid is including every individual in a domain, or people you're not likely to bump into on the street or in the wilderness. Do we really want Azalin as a Native Monster of Darkon, for example? (reminds me of the random darklord encounters in Roots of Evil. yuck!) So, I think your Forlorn ghosts can stay. I'll add a guideline on Category:Native Monster List -- Gonzoron 08:12, 30 July 2014 (MDT)

Sounds good. Looks like I've been missing a colon when I do redirects though. Also, that damn small animal table was a pain to slog though!--ChrisNichols 08:34, 30 July 2014 (MDT)