Is there a reason behind the very strong focus on including fanart on this wiki?

I don't mind having art on the wiki, and I know I'm relatively new to editing, but I've created articles for locations (with templates I made based off some existing articles, since there isn't a standard location template linked in the editor) within Wildemount that, in the year-plus since the release of the EGTW, were never documented, and yet within minutes of doing so sometimes there is sourced and credited fanart linked on the page.

Of course people will have areas they prefer to work on, and I want to stress I enjoy the editing I'm doing, but this wiki is genuinely quite difficult to use and missing significant information compared to other fan wikis I've seen, and from a newcomer perspective it feels like a small amount of prioritizing would go a long way.

(I should note that I don't think this is limited to fan art but that's the thing that stood out most immediately as perhaps something that might be taking a lot of time and effort and that could be put on hold in favor of expanding stubs, creating a more robust template system, etc.)

Describe the bug

Two things, both minor:

1. Links to nonexistent articles, i.e. redlinks, are being styled the same as regular links. See screenshot #1. Immovable Rod is a nonexistent article. These links are being styled as regular links bc something is inserting "classname="new"" into the .a tag instead of "class="new"".

2. Bolding links actually does nothing to them. This is related to the observation @Durandal's Fate made on your message wall, but the heavier weight of links (contained in ".mw-parser-output a") seems to be taking precedence over bold styling. This means that it is impossible to bold links. See screenshot #3 for a comparison between the default 500 weight and bold styling.

Which page(s) does the bug affect?

Anywhere links occur. Template:Nav-MagicItems and the lede of Mollymauk Tealeaf's tarot deck are good examples.

To Reproduce

Simply navigate to the page.

Expected behaviour

It is expected that red links appear as red, differentiated from links to existing articles (see Screenshot #2), and for links to be properly styled as bold when they are placed within such markup.

Screenshots

Screenshot #1

Screenshot #2

Screenshot #3

Desktop (please complete the following information):

- OS: macOS 11.5

- Browser: Firefox

- Version: 90.0

Additional context:

The redlink bug is a new one, appearing if my memory serves sometime in the page handful of days. The bolding one is older, but I've only just now noticed that links are not bolding correctly.

Is it truly useful to include the exact TIME each episode aired, considering the vast majority air at 19:00 PST? It feels cluttering in listings and the infoboxes to include information that is, 99% of the time, unchanging and static.

And, for episodes that did not air at 19:00 PST—is it truly meaningful to know? Is it significant to anyone, 18 months later, that the End of 2019 Fireside Chat aired at 17:00 PST instead of 19:00 PST? If such information is indeed noteworthy or meaningful in some manner, such as in the delay for 2.97, couldn't it be simply noted in the lede or another relevant section, where it can be properly contextualized?

It also presents an issue of: Is this time when the art reel starts? Is it the time the episode itself begins? (See: the fifteen minute discrepancy between the Specials listing and the End of 2019 Fireside Chat. Consider: the art reels often start at 18:45 PST.)

Is there objection to moving away from including specific airtimes in listings and infoboxes?

Describe the bug

By far the least of bugs—when logged in, {{ambox}} and all {{ambox}} dependent templates no longer work properly.

Which page(s) does the bug affect?

Any page using a template in the Category:Alert and notice templates. This includes:

• Opal and Uvenda, through {{stub}}, see Screenshot#2

• Stilben, through {{cleanup}}, see Screenshot #1

• Also visible on the documentation pages for the templates. Most clearly Template:Ambox, see Screenshot #3

To Reproduce

Visit a page using the template while logged in.

Expected behaviour

Expect to see a styled box enclosing the image and text on these templates, including recognizable thick left-hand color border, instead of a simple inline image and text. See screenshot #4.

Screenshots

Screenshot #1: from Stilben

Screenshot #2: from Uvenda

Screenshot #3: from Template: Ambox/doc

Screenshot #4: from Template:Ambox/doc while logged out

Desktop (please complete the following information):

• OS: macOS 11.4

• Browser: Firefox

• Version: 89.0.2

Additional context

Logging out will immediately resolve the issue.

I've also disabled my adblockers, both at the extension level and in the Fandom wiki preferences level, and this did not resolve the issue. I flipped around a bunch of my appearance settings as well, to no avail. Hell, I even logged into an old, now unused account I used to edit Gamepedia with before the merger, and even THAT account doesn't seem these amboxes anymore. Neither does logging in through a private window.

Peeking in web developer tools -> style editor, it seems like the ambox class styling is not loading in while I'm logged in. (There's also a massive discrepancy in the number of rules it's turning up, but I haven't noticed anything else missing.)

Describe the bug

Displayed text in the Source editor doesn't match up with the cursor and text being edited. This happens in at least two different situations.

Which page(s) does the bug affect?

Lots of Source edit pages, maybe most of them at one point or another.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Go to, for example, the Source editing page for Time Line.

2. Use the Find function to look for that phrase "survived, which", then adjust your browser width until the two words are on separate lines, and then make tiny adjustments until the highlighted text no longer matches the displayed text.

3. Try selecting the entire paragraph, or editing the text.

Or...

1. Go to the Source editing page for Ioun.

2. Keep adjusting the browser width until the spellcheck lines no longer match up with the words they're supposed to.

Expected behavior

One expects the displayed text to match up with the text being edited.

Screenshots

Here's what happens when I use the Find function for the phrase "survived, which". The highlighted green section is where the text actually is for editing purposes, but the word "which" is displayed on the next line.

The squiggly red underlines show where the spellcheck is trying to highlight the jargon words "Veluthil" and "Wildemount," but the displayed words are pushed to the right of where the words actually are for editing purposes.

This has a cascading effect on all the text that comes afterward. After this paragraph, everything is off by one line. See what happens when I use the Find function on the next bit of text below that paragraph:

If I click at the end of that highlighted area and start tapping the Delete key, it starts deleting the displayed text one line below:

Notice the cursor appears to be a line above the displayed text that is being edited.

This happens at random on a lot of pages, where one word just happens to get displaced to the next line. I think there are slightly different frame widths for the underlying text and the displayed text.

Similarly, this came up when editing the page for Zaafin (though the page looks different now, as I took this screenshot a week ago):

The blue highlighted area is the entire editable area of the paragraph, right to the end of the episode reference. Again, notice that the short red underlines are where the word "ep" actually is in each case, but the displayed text has been shifted forward.

A similar error with an apparently different cause came up when editing the page for Ioun recently:

The blue highlighted area is actually the paragraph starting with, "The Cobalt Vault is the order's headquarters..." You can see from the red spell-check lines that the browser knows all these Critical Role jargon words (and the contraction "ep") are actually on the line above where they appear. It's like the Source editor isn't recognizing the line break above.

The above screenshot is from a week ago, and it came up at random. Just now I deliberately adjusted my browser width until an error happened, and notice where the red underlines stop matching up:

Clearly, the letters "ul" are supposed to be underlined, but they appear on the next line instead.

Desktop:

- OS: macOS 11.2

- Browser: Chrome

- Version 91.0.4472.114 (Official Build) (arm64)

Additional context

I haven't had this problem in Firefox (using version: 89.0.2).

I'm opening a discussion to broadly pose this to the community, and in a place more appropriate than the prior venue at the message wall of @LynnE216 per the suggestion of @Dexcuracy (pinging to make aware that a discussion has been opened here, as I stated I would do), because this is a change that affects over 250 articles, about 8.5% of existing articles, and counting.

Currently, the C2 + EXU and C1 episode articles are structured differently from one another, and I hope the community discuss the merits of each structure so we can move forward with consistency; because the style is mixed, half must be converted, and an order must be chosen. This concerns the order of the "Inventory", "Featured characters", and "Quotations" sections. Currently:

• C1 articles are ordered: Featured characters, Inventory, Quotations. Example: old revision of The Nameless Ones. This order has been in place for a while and is status quo.

• C2 + EXU articles are ordered: Featured characters, Quotations, Inventory. Example: current revision of The Nameless Ones. This order is a new change.

The change was made, as I understand the argument and I invite @LynnE216 to present it themselves to ensure it is accurately conveyed, perceiving the prior order prevented images from being effectively and adequately housed in those sections, thus limiting the amount of space available for image placement. So, the argument is, moving "Inventory" after "Quotations" remedies this.

I and @OccidentalAvian perceived the original order posed no such issue. I personally felt images comfortably housed in these sections before, as seen at "Where There Is a Will...", "A Heart Grown Cold", "Between a Ball and a Hot Place", "A Fog Lifted", "The Calm Before the Storm", "The Chase Begins". (Links to old versions of the articles. Further examples can be provided at request for further comparison.) The closest to an ostensible issue I've noticed thus far is at "Fetching Fables & Frosty Friends", where there is a small left-hand gap; however, I believe this can be remedied by reducing image sizes slightly. As such, I perceive no image conflicts nor limitations posed by the original order. I also believe that this established order is more intuitive. So, the argument is, C2 and EXU pages ought to be restored to the original order, as the order on C1 is the long-established order and status quo

I request that the community provide input on the merits of each. If I may be presumptuous, if there is an absence of clear preferential support for the new change, I move to restore the status quo order as it is the established order.

Describe the bug

A clear and concise description of what the bug is.

Which page(s) does the bug affect?

Please provide the link to the page where the bug occurs.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behaviour:

1. Go to '...'

2. Click on '....'

3. Scroll down to '....'

4. See error

Expected behaviour

A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.

Screenshots

If applicable, please add screenshots to help explain your problem. If used in your description, please number multiple screenshots.

Desktop (please complete the following information):

- OS: [e.g. Windows 10, macOS 11.4, Linux]

- Browser [e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari]

- Version [e.g. 90. Find this using the 3 dots/3 dash menu > Help/Settings > About]

Mobile (please complete the following information):

- Device: [e.g. iPhone6]

- OS: [e.g. Android 11, iOS 14]

- Browser [e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari]

- Version [e.g. 90. Find this using the 3 dots/3 dash menu > Help/Settings > About]

Additional context

Add any other context about the problem here.

Hello! I've been developing a template to hopefully make building and editing episode lists easier and clearer, since the current method involves a lot of difficult to parse and intricate wiki-markup, which might be especially difficult for newer editors or editors not as confident with tables to work with.

You can check out the work I've been doing here at one of my subpages. You can compare the markup there with the tables at "Chapter 19", "Narrative Telephone", and "Talks Machina" as examples.

The template currently also has features like automatically adding in "TBA" or "Forthcoming" to empty or missing airdates, VOD links, and runtimes—which could be useful to build a tracking category for when these items are missing, the template can be altered to add pages to that category. It also automatically removes episode summaries when an episode list is transcluded onto another page, which circumvents the need to carefully keep track of <noinclude> tags while editing; the behavior is built-in to occur for transcluding on to "List of episodes" and another page that the editors can specify. Currently, it only looks for two pages total, "List of episodes" and a specified one, but I can build it to allow editors to specify two or three pages additional to "List of episodes".

The template will also include what I've termed an "auxiliary" column that can be named and used as seen fit, such as in the way "Narrative Telephone" has a Storyteller column.

I do think there's merit in having a template that simplifies this process and is easier to read, and in the process of polishing it, I have a bunch of questions I'd like to propose to the community:

• Are there any other features or behaviors that such a template should have?

• How many auxiliary columns should there be? I don't believe we have an example of using more than one currently, so I believe one is enough.

• What exactly should the language for the missing airdate, VOD, and runtime be?

• What exactly will the header cells say? I am going to be building a companion template to handle the header rows of the episode list, which will also serve to norm this header row across pages. The examples at the subpage are my personal proposals for the langauge. I intend to build logic in the header template that allows the editor to switch between "No. in chapter" and "No. in season" and logic that changes "No." to "No. overall" if another number column is enabled.

Please, let me know if you have any comments or even if you think the template is indeed useful.

I've noticed that a lot of the episode tables, like at Miniseries, the chapter articles (i.e. Chapter 19), Narrative Telephone, etc. are often wrapped in <onlyinclude> tags and various elements are wrapped in <noinclude>. Is there a reason for this? This seems like something that's only necessary if these tables were then being transcluded somewhere else, but far as I'm aware, they are not.

I noticed a few pages of episodes have been moved, but their redirects have stayed the same. The Episode Switcher must also be changed as well.

I don't know how to do that, I only know of a few people who do. Unless you also know how, please leave moving episode titles to those that do.

I've brought this up at the message wall of @LynnE216 and @SorcererSupreme21 has left a comment there, and I hope they both join discussion here as well, but I feel it may be worth opening in a centralized location: is there a need to include "Exandria Unlimited" in the article titles about its episodes?

Currently, we have "The Nameless Ones - Exandria Unlimited" and "The Oh No Plateau - Exandria Unlimited". Lynn, as stated on their message wall, moved the first EXU ep article to include "- Exandria Unlimited" to differentiate from the main campaigns. However, my question is: do these articles NEED to be differentiated from Critical Role episodes in their article titles?

We do not differentiate Campaign 1, Campaign 2, and Specials episodes in this manner EXCEPT where such is baked into title on YouTube (i.e., "Liam's One Shot: Song of the Lorelei", "Diablo One Shot"), so why do Exandria Unlimited articles have to be differentiated here? They're stated to be EXU in the first line of the articles, so it's clear they are. The structure of the YouTube video titles mirrors that of C2 episodes: "Title | Series | Episode Number". See also the Critical Recap treating the episode title in full as "The Nameless Ones".

Generally, adding "Exandria Unlimited" to the episode title seems both unnecessary and inconsistent with the way we treat campaigns. Both myself and @SorcererSupreme21 have expressed that they should be moved to the article titles without "Exandria Unlimited".

On a related note, and perhaps conversely, currently the UnDeadwood articles have a similar naming scheme, "UnDeadwood Part I: Stay Close, Reverend" etc. However, these are the exact YouTube video titles. Personally, I also don't necessarily see why they should be titled "UnDeadwood Part X". However, I COULD support this being treated differently. It is more similar to say "Liam's One Shot: Song of the Lorelei" or "Diablo One Shot" than it is to how EXU and C2 videos are titled. It is also worth noting that UnDeadwood is produced as a single play session split into multiple episodes.

So, is the differentiation in the title on account of it not being the main campaign necessary? Should the EXU article titles be at just "The Nameless Ones" or should they remain "The Nameless Ones - Exandria Unlimited"?

Please a comment with your thoughts, both for moving the articles and for keeping them where they are, as it's difficult to gauge where the consensus lays without vocalized responses. I generally wish to discuss this before there are too many episodes of EXU out and many articles to move.

Regular contributors may have noticed a lot of admin changes lately in older articles, changing old references and citations from chapterXepisode to campaignXepisode format. With Campaign Three coming at some point in the future, we need to clean up all the old references that used 3xXX to reference an episode in Chapter 3. At the same time, we need to move all references onto the now-standard "Campaign#XEpisode" (for example, "C2x100") format.

So if you happen to be editing in an article that uses the chapterXepisode format, please take a few extra minutes to change those cites to campaignXepisode. Obviously, cites to Chapter 3 are the most critical, but hopefully there will be many more to follow.

Hello! I've made a bunch of changes to the {{Twitter}} template. It has much more obvious links to the status being cited, and it now also has the ability to include a tweet that's being replied to, which is useful when the body of the cited tweet is vague about the exact topic being talked about.

Please, let me know if you see anything weird going on across pages due to these changes.

Though, this is also a good moment to say, the template isn't used as often in citations as it was originally designed to be way back! So, I encourage everyone to use the template when citing a tweet because it'll provide clearer information about what the actual substance and date of the tweet is—and it'll let us retain some information about the should it be deleted.

There's been a bit of a conflict regarding what category the miniseries Exandria Unlimited should be considered to be - a main campaign, or strictly in the Specials category. Currently, it's been put in both categories by different editors. I think it would be a good idea to have a discussion about it here so we can decide what to do about the situation.

NOTE: Only one episode has aired so far, and it's possible that this is a decision to be made after it has finished airing, when we have a better idea of where ExU fits in the CR canon. But we can at least begin the conversation!

So, first, let's define what the Specials category is. Currently, the category is used for one-shots (single episode adventures), Q&A sessions, campaign wrap-ups, dedicated Critmas episodes, and battle royales. Several one-shots are set in Exandria, and some of them (like The Search for Grog) are considered completely canon, and an extension of the main campaigns.

Campaigns, on the other hand, have so far referred to Critical Role itself - the main series, with the core cast, set in Exandrian with upwards of 100 episodes.

UnDeadwood, which is the most similar thing we've seen to ExU, is not listed in the Specials page .The episodes do not subscribe to the {{ep|Sx00}} template, and instead have none. However, Undeadwood is in the Specials category. UnDeadwood is a 4 episode miniseries not set in Exandria.

With all that in mind, the one thing I'm sure of is that this is a bit of a conundrum! I don't believe that ExU should be put in the Campaigns category with only 8 episodes and a non-returning cast and DM. However, since it's a miniseries, it works differently than most Specials, which are standalone. ExU is also different from UnDeadwood in that it is set in Exandria, and is much longer (UnDeadwood had four episodes of rougly 2 hours lenght).

Here's what I propose. Why not make a new category of content labelled Miniseries that could be a subclass of Specials? We would list the ExU and Undeadwood episodes on the Specials page, but in their own separated tables. And of course each miniseries has their own main page already, plus one page per episode.

There's also the options of making Miniseries a separate category (Critical Role content would then be split between Campaigns, Miniseries, and Specials); or to think of UnDeadwood and ExU as separate shows and treat them like other non-TTRPG webseries (Talks Machina, Critter Hug, Between the Sheets, etc) rather than Critical Role content. Or, maybe there's other options I haven't thought of! I'd love to hear other editors' thoughts on this.

With how detailed nearly all of the other infoboxes, both in-universe and real-world, have gotten, I think it is time we take a look at one of this wiki's oldest infoboxes, Template:Infobox Character. Specifically, the "Character Information" section is currently a collection of various, somewhat arbitrarily sorted information. For the sake of simplicity, as this template is currently in use on hundreds of pages, I am not just suggesting removing and replacing rows(?) of info (unless, of course, there's strong support for doing so, but that would require a lot of manual work, or a bot), but reorganizing it and adding new ones to flesh out the infobox more, which can be added and sourced more easily without screwing with anything already present.

A drafted idea:

Top of the infobox:

1. Theme = An general idea for infoboxes wiki-wide, which would recolor the infobox based on a character's affiliation. This is a neat idea implemented on a variety of wikis and I have seen suggested here before (though I don't remember where).

2. Name = The character's name, usually just the name of the page itself.

3. Image = Infobox profile image.

4. Caption = Description and sourcing of the infobox image.

5. Type = If a character is a PC, Guest PC, NPC, etc.

6. Actor = Who plays the character, if anyone, if they appeared onstream.

Biographical Information:

1. Name = The character's full name or designation.

2. Also known as = Nicknames, codenames, aliases, fake identities, etc.

3. Born = The character's date and location of death.

4. Age = The character's most recently confirmed or calculatable age. Might want to move this to "Status" since it could spoil a death.

5. Family = Family/ies and family members known of the character.

6. Place(s) = Locations important to the character.

7. Connections = Affiliations and relationships important to the character.

8. Class = The character's D&D class(es) and subclass(es).

9. Languages = Languages the character knows.

10. 
    

Physical Appearance

1. Creature type = The character's creature type (e.g. Humanoid, Fiend) and subtype (e.g. Goblinkin, Lycanthrope).

2. Race = The race or species of the character (e.g. Gnome).

3. Subrace = The subrace or subspecies of the character (e.g. Deep gnome). Alternatively, this info can be put into parentheses in the preceding "Race" row.

4. Gender = The character's identified gender and pronouns.

5. Height = The character's height in feet and inches, followed by a metric conversion to meters.

6. Weight = The character's weight in pounds, followed by a metric conversion to kilograms.

7. Hair color = The character's hair or fur color and if anything is dyed or shaved, if they are of a hairy of furry species.

8. Eye color = The character's eye color and any important details, if they are of a eyeful species.

9. Feather color = The character's feather colors, if they are of a feathery species.

10. Skin color = The character's skin color. Skin tones for humans and similar races are, on other wikis, usually relegated to just "Light", "Tan", or "Dark".

Status

1. Status = Alive? Dead? Missing in action? etc.

2. Died = The character's date and location of death.

3. Resurrected = The character's date(s) and location(s) of resurrection.

4. Death episode(s) = Self-explanatory.

"Statistics" and "Episode Appearances" continue as normal.

Thoughts? This was just mostly spitballing and looking at how other wikis organize their character infoboxes. Overall, I feel like the Character infobox is really lacking in detail compared to other infoboxes, and there is probably more info I have missed that could be added or changed.

It's been about a month since I've first posted about this, but at the time @LynnE216 urged that we be able to take a look at the new Desktop before doing anything massive about it. Given the comments and activity I've seen around, it seems many of us had time to play around with the new Desktop.

So, now that we've had a chance to look at the new Desktop, I'm reopening the topic again: I feel it may be best practice to move away from reduced text, either through the small tag or the font-size property, to increase accessibility and readability.

This is specifically in regards to readable text, i.e. text meant to be read by the average reader and meant to be presenting information. This includes, but is not limited to, text in infoboxes, appearance lists (including notes via templates like Template:1st), inventory tables, and notable people tables. This also additionally is about text in navigation templates, which tends to have text that already starts small, so reducing the text makes the font even smaller. This is NOT about references, which are not readable text, i.e. references are not text written with the intent to present information to readers.

This is also not necessarily about reduced text in Template:Ep, though I would also encourage removing reduced text in that, and similar, templates as well because I do not believe we lose anything at all by making that full-size and I do not perceive a reason to reduce that either.

As far as I have seen, there does not seem to be necessary to reduce the font size. Compare:

• Infobox: Belabor's reduced "(formerly)" vs. Coat of the Crest's full-size "(formerly)"

• Infobox: Vandran's reduced "(formerly)" and "(via Jester's Sending)" vs. "(formerly)" and "(Former lover)" et al. The notes under the episode appearances heading in the infobox, which we're also really inconsistent about noting these things in infobox, may be too detailed possibly?

• Tables: Port Damali's reduced notable people table and The Gates of Zadash's reduced inventory table vs. full-size versions

Much of the time, it seems to be an aesthetic concern. In other cases, it seems to be an attempt to avoid text wrapping, even though text wrapping is not a problem in itself. Often, it seems to be an attempt to handle information that is too detailed for an infobox in the first place, where making the text more concise would be the actual fix. Tables function perfectly fine at full-size text, and the new desktop allows content area to be expanded at will, which covers any problems.

The current usage is also inconsistent, especially in infoboxes. Why is "(formerly)" reduced, but information like number of charges or other property details or specific type of weapon, as on Spire on Conflux or Titanstone Knuckles or Animus, not? Titanstone Knuckles and Animus use both sizes, even, which is terribly inconsistent. Why is "(Exandria)" full-size but not "(sometimes)" on Syngorn? Fjord, Leylas Kryn, Claret Orders do not use small text in any of the ways that Tal'Dorei Council, Tombtakers, or our item pages do.

Readability and accessibility is important, and at the the original thread, @KylaraE agreed that such was a good point. I don't quite see a reason to continue using small text in infoboxes, tables, and readable text templates, especially when full-size is used without issue in many places across the wiki.

Lately there have been competing edits over whether various topics warrant their own articles, and out of respect I think we should air the two main disagreements:

1. whether the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, and

2. whether the topic is specific enough to Critical Role to warrant an article on this wiki.

This is, after all, "a wiki about Critical Role". And part of what makes any wiki useful or easily navigable is that each article has drawn significant attention on its own. (Wikipedia's Notability guidelines are a good lodestar for how readers expect a wiki to be organized.) When one sees a link on a wiki, it calls attention to itself as something that provides valuable context for what one is currently reading.

For a hypothetical example, there have been dozens of campfires in episodes of Critical Role, but does that mean there should be a "Campfire" page on the wiki? Seeing a link on the word campfire in an article draws attention to the word, as if there's something special about this campfire (maybe it's different than other campfires in Exandria) or campfires in Exandria are different enough from campfires in other settings that a page about campfires would shed light on the setting. If the reader clicks through and gets only a generic definition of campfire and a list of each time a campfire has appeared in Critical Role media, that's a waste of the reader's time, and leads to reader to believe that links on this wiki don't provide valuable context.

An article can also be specific to Critical Role but not attract enough attention on its own to warrant its own page. For example, if a family has attracted attention, but certain members of the family are only mentioned in passing, the scant information about those individuals should be merged into the article about the family until those individuals do something noteworthy.

Right now, there are two separate pages dedicated to one flavor quote in the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting: Grogan and Grogan's apprentice. Grogan has never appeared in any other context other than to give color to the Goliath Brawler so it's more than a stat block. Grogan's apprentice is only mentioned as the person to whom Grogan is speaking: no name, no identifying information like class or race, no indication of importance, no action. In short, there is nothing about them that couldn't easily be packed into one or two phrases/lines on the Brawler's League page and the appropriate section of the Goliath page.

If Matt or another DM were to suddenly bring Grogan or his apprentice up again in an adventure so that they attracted attention, that could be worthy of its own page. But right now, they're clutter in the NPCs category. They're people who show up in your autocomplete bar when you're searching for Grog or trying to link to his page. That's a tiny amount of friction, but multiply it by the thousands of times someone starts typing out "Grog" on this wiki.

I'm making a point here only about which topics warrant an article, not which information should be included somewhere on the wiki.

And I think there's a pretty broad consensus about notability and specificity among editors on this wiki, but I'm bringing it up here in case anyone has something to add, or in case anyone has a reasoned disagreement. I plan to incorporate any reasonable feedback here when I start merging information from non-notable pages into other articles, and I suggest others do the same.

Why can't you delete posts here?

Hi! Hey! This is your SPOILER WARNING!

You've been warned!

So, I am but a fairly new Critter and I have only watched Campaign 2, but I have had a lot of Campaign 1 explained to me. From my point of view, a lot seemed to happen with Liam's character, Vax. Including that he died at the end of the Campaign.

In Campaign 2, Taliesin's first character, Molly, also died. He then made a new character, Caduceus, who ended up reviving Kingsley, who also became Taliesin's character.

I had a weird thought of how Campaign 1 was like Liam's Campaign and Campaign 2 was Taliesin's Campaign and now I'm beginning to wonder if it may be the same for Campaign 3.

I think it'd be interesting to see Campaign 3 belong to one of the ladies.

What do you think?

I think Mat will pick a new starting location. I hope they start in Marquet.