Talk:Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey (Book)
IMO, quotes should be offset and/or in italics to make it clear it was written IN the source and not in the wiki as a personal comment. I had to do a double-take :P. --Nerit 09:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well for my two wolf fangs, the title of Authors' Notes is an unmistakable indication. And I would distinguish this case from, for example, the Goblyn entry where there is an in game text from S that I did put in italics. So there are at least three categories here: in game; out of game creator; and out of game fan. An additional two points: massive italicing, which would be necessary for some of the Gazetteers as the Author's Notes are multiple and long, would not be pleasing I think; and italicing, in any case, really should be indented on two sides and probably right/fully justified too but I am not sure if either of those are possible. What do others think?Cure 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Again we come upon the question in my mind of: does this even belong here? Or should it be a summary and a link instead? In fact, reading it now, it's certainly interesting, but there's not much that's really relevant to the wiki page. Is your average person looking for info on this book going to care which parts Mr. King enjoyed working on most? I mean, I do, but I'm a certified Ravenloft nut. Couldn't we just have a link like this instead:
Author's Notes
Author Brett King shares his thoughts on the book
?? Do we really need all this cut and paste? -- Gonzoron 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, as to King, some authors make a more relevent show of it than others.
DeepShadow when through the extensive Gaz 4 Authors' noteS and hacked out the dread possibilities and city information and relocated it to the relevent domains and cities while leaving a link to each and describing briefly what the original Authors' Notes had added. Were I to cast a vote on the matter, I would probably say move a copy of the material to its most appropriate spot plus keep the original in the Author's Notes, but I can certainly see the logic of what he has done, and the link to the original back on the FoS site is still available. Perhaps that is a good compromise where applicable.
But not all material is so specific and so easily put in the right place. I was looking over Mangrum's Gaz I material and thinking that it and a thousand other scattered elements need to be gathered together into a What Might Have Been page. But that is a daunting task to say the least. And there is no way to adequately summarise such stuff. For my money leave it be in the Wiki as it gives us a comprehensive picture of each Gaz.
Now in game does it matter, for example, who authored what chapter? Not in the least. But out of game if one had a question, it is great to have such information readily available so one can PM any creator who is still about. And putting such information together is not always simply reading the Author's Notes. Cross-referencing and digging through threads on the board is often necessary too, as it was in determining who wrote Falkovnia. And for that matter I still haven't been able to pin down every domain which is to say both expertise is required and the creation of knowledge is going on, which it would be nice to make available to others rather than condemning them to repeat the process themselves. Finally, having discovered such things, I forget them myself and then have to do it all over again! And that was the reason I had long argued for having a Ravenloft wiki, for my own sanity!Cure 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
