Talk:Xagy

From Greyhawk Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Bibliography vs. External Link Question

When citing works of an author what is the tipping point between a bibliographic source and and external link?

It was my impression that if you are citing a source of information it should go in the Bibliography and if you are just providing a link to related material it should go in an External Link section.

I will bow to whatever standards are accepted in this wiki but to maintain consistency I need to know when a citation is a citation and when it is a link.

Thank you,

Bryan Blumklotz

AKA Saracenus 10:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I put canon material in the bibliography and things like links to Canonfire! articles or other apocrypha in the External Links section, in order to distinguish between the two. Links to wikipedia articles (which obviously aren't themselves TSR/WotC or officially licensed sources) go in the External Links section.

-- Rip 12:13, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Generally, it depends. Canon material should nearly always appear in the bibliography, as should most apocrypha. Content that appears in pdfs or online periodicals should also appear in a bibliography. Content in a more "rough" form, such as message board posts, wiki entries, & Canonfire! fanon, should appear as external links.--Robbastard 22:31, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Suggesting vs. Stating & Canon

Rip,

When you changed my listing under Creative Origins you used "Gygax suggested" which implies he was guessing as to the origin of Xagy. This was not my impression of his answers in response to Grodog's questions. As Gygax was the original author on Xagy and nothing in his reply stated that he was speculating, it should be listed as "stated" not "suggested."

Also, is canon only officially published material by TSR, WotC, and Paizo? If Gary Gygax speaks about his creation is that not also canon?

Thank you,

Bryan Blumklotz

AKA Saracenus 11:00, 23 December 2007 (EST)

As Gary Gygax said in the thread in question, "Okay... but all of this is no longer my business. The world setting in question is the IP of Wizards." So even he isn't claiming "canon" status for his ideas. He seemed impatient and I'm not certain he intended his answers to be taken seriously. Canon is defined, for the purposes of this wiki, in the Greyhawk canon article, and summarized in the Writing Guidelines section as "...generally anything that has been published in Dungeons & Dragons gaming material, either by, or with the approval of, the owners of the Greyhawk license." Unpublished ideas by setting authors are defined as apocrypha. -- Rip 11:56, 23 December 2007 (EST)
I just read the Greyhawk Canon article, is there a standard notation or section for Apocrypha. How does one note that something is considered Apocrypha vs. Fanon vs. Canon. -- Saracenus 12:22, 23 December 2007 (EST)
In this case, EGG's statements would be considered apocrypha.--Robbastard 21:58, 24 December 2007 (EST)