User talk:Smillan 31

Wha-a-a-a?!?!

Hey there, Man!

It's good to see you! I saw your post on Facebook, and I was really pumped to see you joined so quickly! I really don't use Facebook much ever, but then, there's some social media I don't use because well, you know - toxic people! :P At any rate, saw you commenting about Kwalish last week, and thought that was cool, :D

Anyway, can't wait to see you add a line or two to the Wiki! Dig in, and read, and type something in! :P

--Icarus (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2018 (CST)

Welcome!

Congratulations! You're the first to add actual GH content to our wiki! Let me know if you have any questions.--Robbastard 19:44, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought I'd make it my job to put out some of the more obscure little tidbits I've been running across lately while reading tAB. Thanks for taking the lead on this! --Smillan 31

Bibliographies

Generally speaking, I think the more references the better. However, IMO, "going overboard," would be to list EVERY source where, for instance, the word "Greyhawk" appears in the Greyhawk article, even if it isn't a GH product. Another example would be to list every appearance of a priest or temple of Pelor in the Pelor article. In general, however, i think we should err on the side of too many references, rather than too few. I'd personally rather rule on articles with "too many" references on a case-by-case basis, rather than making a hard & fast rule of "x number of refs per article."--149.160.118.3 18:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I did list all the swanmay refs in EG but they're all substantive and useful, most being descriptions of npcs or encounters with npc swanmays.--Smillan 31 22:39, 6 June 2008 (EDT)