Jump to content

Talk:Greyhawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note re sources from ENWorld Gygax Q&A forum

[edit]

An important source of information about the early days of D&D are the archives of the Q&A forum at ENWorld hosted by Gary Gygax between 2002 and his death in March 2008. In this forum, Gygax used the handle Col Pladoh, as he confirmed in an interview in 2003: "Q. What online forums do you frequent regularly? Gygax: I hit EN World as Col_Pladoh. I also post a lot on the www.lejendary.com boards, and on the MSN Lejendary Adventure Community, and www.dragonsfoot.org ones about once a week." (edited transcript at http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/dungeons-dragons-cre.html, complete interview archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20031204163509/www.kcgeek.com/archives/interviews/mordenkainens_fantastic_interview/031302.html). This has been judged at WP:RSN to be a valid recognition that Gygax and "Col Pladoh" were the same person. Guinness323 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk Novels

[edit]

I got the listing of novels from the following website: Fantasic Fiction - Greyhawk --Azathar 15:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Note added 2/2/06 by a passerby: I believe the listing of the 1996 short story "Evening the Odds" is in error in that it does not take place on Oerth. It may involve Gord the Rogue, but I believe the story takes place in Michael Moorcock's shared multiverse setting, not in the World of Greyhawk. I cannot verify this directly because I don't have a copy of the story myself, but you may want to look into this question in terms of ensuring accuracy. Thanks for putting this page together; I'll come back and visit again sometime. Cheers!


Zvar 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the Novels list, and in the process I deleted the following (Preserved here in case I'm wrong):

Both books, looking at Norton's website and Amazon don't look to be set in Greyhawk. If someone knows for a fact they are, please re-add.
>END COMMENT by Zvar<

Actually, I'm pretty sure Quag Keep is set in Greyhawk. The Return book, I don't know anything about. Does anyone have a definitive source (or have the books to check)? Also, the point above from a "passerby" (me, before I got an account) I think is still valid. I don't believe that the short story "Evening the Odds" has anything to do with Greyhawk, other than it is about Gord the Rogue (after, maybe long after, he left Oerth). Fairsing 05:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quag Keep is indeed set in Greyhawk (& presumably RtQK as well), though it isn't a Greyhawk most would recognize. The book was published prior to the setting's release, & thus the geography (as well as other features) is quite different than what appears in the official setting release of 1980 & expansion in 1983. Therefore, while most Greyhawk fans don't regard QK as canon, though they do recognize it for its historical significance, being the first Greyhawk novel & all.--Robbstrd 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting overhaul

[edit]

I've re-formatted the page to conform to Wikipedia style. In the process, I converted many bolded names to redlinks, which I will try to fill out as time permits. -Harmil 11:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note added 2/2/06 by a passerby: I believe the listing of the 1996 short story "Evening the Odds" is in error in that it does not take place on Oerth. It may involve Gord the Rogue, but I believe the story takes place in Michael Moorcock's shared multiverse setting, not in the World of Greyhawk. I cannot verify this directly because I don't have a copy of the story myself, but you may want to look into this question in terms of ensuring accuracy. Thanks for putting this page together; I'll come back and visit again sometime. Cheers!

Next steps

[edit]

At this point, my next steps will involve de-redlinking this page. That means creating articles for everything associated with Greyhawk. After that:

  • Find images of boxed set covers
  • Include more of the history of the campaign, how it played into D&D's early years, etc.
  • Some mention of the falling out with EGG, though I don't want to dwell on it
  • Touch on the current change in direction, and Wizards' plan to switch the default game world
  • Shape the article up to the point that it could legitimately be a FAC

-Harmil 19:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice proposal, I'll help where I can. I think the falling out of EGG and TSR should be dealt with on his own page and/or the TSR page, though I agree that maybe a brief mention of it here, and how it chnaged TSR's (and later WotC's) perception of Greyhawk, versus how EGG perceived it. BTW, FAC? Do you mean FAQ?--Azathar 03:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"FAC" is short for Featured article candidate. Stan 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away a bit since I wrote the above, but fear not: I'm still at it. Just wrote Castle Greyhawk and updated both articles with the original Greyhawk cover (Image:Greyhawk Supplement 1975.jpg). -Harmil 11:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Greyhawk" Supplement has no significant setting information

[edit]

There is no information on the "World of Greyhawk" in the 1975 supplement by that name. It is what we would tday call pure "crunchy bits", and includes much of what is now considered to be "Core" D&D -- the theif and paladin classes, 7th,8th,and 9th level spells, classic monsters such as the Beholder, many of the "standard" magic items, etc. However, there's nothing in there on the Greyhawk world per se -- rather, this is rules material used by Gary Gygax in that campaign.

Feb 2, 2006 -Actually, there is one bit of setting detail, but it is so minor as to be essentially irrelevant. Specifically, on p. 63 there is a brief note regarding a magic fountain in the dungeon of Castle Greyhawk. So, "no significant setting" information is probably a more precise description.
I would think that if the setting information in the book is that minor and specific you would be best to just mention the fountain if there was any more then that 1 thing though i would agree on just saying no significant although im not sure what the precedents on the matter are Tuypo1 (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk Supplement I is absolutely loaded with "significant information" about the world of Greyhawk. It has a ton of magic items, monsters and so on, all from the world of Greyhawk. What it doesn't have is any information about the politics or geography of Oerth, which is I take it what is meant here. DHBoggs (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of intro

[edit]

Someone seems to have been going through some of the Greyhawk articles and re-formatting the intro. The new formatting that is being introduced is in conflict with Wikipedia style guidelines, and should generally be avoided. Heck, if it were up to me, I'd change some things too, but readers of Wikipedia have come to expect information to be presented in a certain way, and one part of that is having the title of the article appear as early in the first sentence as possible, in bold.

Also, to the issue of Greyhawk Dragons. They are not unique to Greyhawk, though in other settings they are simply called Steele Dragons. -Harmil 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be one of those. The change to format, in regard to setting information, is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Style, though not everyone agrees. And it's good to have a fellow Greyhawker return. :)Robbstrd 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the formatting change is not technically in conflict with the Manual of Style.[1] -- Ec5618 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't really been all that gone, just spending a lot of time on another wiki that you might find interesting. As for the Wikiproject, I'll check it out and contribute some thoughts there if it seems it would help. Personally, I'd rather focus on the real content than a new intro formatting scheme. -Harmil 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've restored the link to RPGnet. I browsed it a bit. There's some useful information there. I don't think that we should remove links only because they were added by someone with a vested interest, though that certainly raises some alarms. If there's a real problem with the content, please let's discuss it. -Harmil 13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any external link added by an administrator of the site to which the link points is fair game for removal by any other editor as it violoates Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, point number 3. It is also possible that the RPGNet site violates point number 4 on that list as well, regarding avoiding links to sites that sell products & services or have "objectionable amounts of advertising." All that being said, I'm fine accepting the consensus of the other editors of this page. If the consensus is that the value of the link to RPGNet outweighs the concerns about it being a commercial site, then it's ok with me. Fairsing 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the editor who added the link was acting rashly, but I was just advocating looking at the content of the link and deciding based on that. The guidelines aren't "rules for what links to blow away with extreme prejudice," just a way to judge how reasonable (or unreasonable) you might be behaving. It's another story if you're spamming your links over several articles... then I would suggest (and have used) the Big Guns.
Personal note: I almost violated this rule, myself, but ended up just adding my link to the talk page at Talk:List of Greyhawk deities. *plug* ;-) -Harmil 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good comments. To your point about spam, the author had added a link to his Web site in five different Wikipedia articles before I decided to back them all out. Despite this, I don't think it was that author's intent to deliberately spam the encyclopedia, although that might have been the net result. I believe the author was acting in good faith and honestly thought Wikipedia would be better off with multiple links to his site, but of course that's exactly why the guidline exists -- it's better for a site administrator to recognize that he or she is inherently biased when it comes to his or her own site and allow others to make the (presumably more objective) call as to whether or not the links should be added. Fairsing 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed the link from the article to the project page. Seemed like it went against Wikipedia's guideline to avoid self-referencing links in such spaces. My understanding is that all project stuff is supposed to be done on talk pages or project pages, (except for templates and portals, which are of course designed to go into article space). Fairsing 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The future of this article

[edit]

My goal has always been to see Greyhawk become a featured article, and hopefully even one day see the front page. To that end, I intend to start work on the fairly typical progression that articles should go through:

The longest journey begins with but a single step, or so they say. Thus, I'll start adding citations and scanning the text for problems sometime this week. -Harmil 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for Kalamanthis

[edit]

Kalamanthis will most likely be nominated for AFD soon by a contributor who makes many AFD requests daily. Before this happens, I request discussion about merging the article's small content into the Geography and population in this article. - Ukulele 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: My statement about the above contributor making "many AFD requests daily" was not intended to come off as a judgment or snarky remark-- a poor choice of words on my part. But there is a current and IMHO fast-paced clean-up effort taking place regarding RPG content by several contributors, so time may be short before Kalamanthis may be nominated for AFD-- and I believe the case for it will be strong as the article stands. Ukulele 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for Battle of a Fortnight's Length

[edit]

Battle of a Fortnight's Length may soon be deleted (I did propose the deletion btw). What do you think about including the article's content in a separate section in this main article? - Ukulele 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xan Yae

[edit]

Why does Xan Yae redirect here? 24.7.121.2 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Movement section

[edit]

Yes, I just tagged the hell out of this section, because almost each and every sentence in it is based on vague, "many felt..." statements with no citations. Honestly, I could have put [who?] and ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] on every sentence, but that would have been too many tags to actually read the article. It is wildly non-NPOV, treating the people who lobbied for the return of Greyhawk as righteous unsung heroes and TSR as clearly unwilling to listen to them, without considering any other issues (such as the sales numbers for Greyhawk products might have been that led to TSR canceling the line). This entire section needs to be rewritten without weasel words and with a balanced POV. Specific objections:

  • Article states that "Because Gygax was also the creator of The World of Greyhawk setting, his materials were considered “Canon” – bona fide Greyhawk history even when it disagreed with events in “official” TSR products." Considered "canon" by whom? Who are these mysterious men who have decided, on behalf of all people who ever played in Greyhawk, that Gygax's info trumps that of TSR? Is there some secret cabal somewhere?
  • Do we have any proof that "TSR found itself on the defensive", or is it just what those who love the setting hope was happening?
  • Who "widely considered" the fan work to be as good or better than the published stuff? Reviewers? If so, cite them.
  • If transcripts exist of TSR workers yelling at fans over Greyhawk, they should be linked. Otherwise, it's just negative rumors.

I also eliminated sentences implying that Greyhawk fans are smarter and better educated, and one indicating unsubstantiated rumors about writers working for fan sites. This section needs to get whipped into shape with the facts--and JUST facts--or this article will never make it to FA status. Right now, it reads like propaganda written to create the impression that a massive outpouring of support happened without providing any actual proof thereof. Without citations and clearer language, though, it's all just rumor and opinion. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks for doing that! Web Warlock (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I considered doing that myself, but I wasn't aware that it had been added by one person, and the idea that Greyhawk fans continued the world's popularity through a period without official support seemed like a valid idea for a section. Just, you know, a well-written and researched section. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It basically is what happened, but I doubt it's well documented at all. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunndi

[edit]

Hallo, I know nothing about Greyhawk but was helping out at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles in a Wiki-gnomish way and created a stub for Sunndi, as there were 21 redlinks to it. It's threatened with being turned into a Redirect back to Greyhawk unless it gets a bit more content. I've added a sentence or two, but it would be great if one of you enthusiasts would expand the article! PamD (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I chave expanded the page, everyone else is welcome to add more info.Guinness323 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lum the Mad

[edit]

Probably shouldn't direct here unless you actually have something to say about him, better off as a red article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I concur. I was linked here from the Planescape torment article expecting info on Lum.[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.82.198 (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheon COPYVIO

[edit]

The Pantheon section, while having a link to a dedicated listing article, also contained a wholesale copy of the (core) dieties listing from the Players Handbook. As it is not part of the System Reference Document material made available under the Open Gaming License, I removed the copied section per WP:COPYVIO. John Darrow (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Zagyg

[edit]

Can someone with more knowledge than I please add a section on the connection between the recent "Castle Zagyg" modules (published for Castles & Crusades) and the Greyhawk setting? Please. Came here looking for that info and it's not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange ginger (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possilbe refs

[edit]

[2][3][4][5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article?

[edit]

We have gotten Forgotten Realms up to GA status, and Dragonlance has been nominated. We could probably do the same with Ravenloft, Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Mystara and even Eberron (and maybe we will, in time), but why not get the granddaddy of campaign settings up there? Several modules connected to the setting (Dwellers of the Forbidden City, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Tomb of Horrors, and White Plume Mountain) are already Good Articles. It will take a lot of work, but it's more than doable if we put our heads together. We will have to find sources for pretty much everything in the article (the references section is looking mighty bare to me right now) and to a fair amount of restructuring, but I bet if we dig through our old copies of Dragon, White Dwarf, and quite possibly other more obscure publications, books like 30 Years of Adventure, Heroic Worlds by Lawrence Schick, and Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, and any reliable non-fan-produced websites that talk about the setting (think Wired, Wizards' website, GameSpy, or Google Books for possible ideas), in addition to the gaming supplements themselves.

This article needs to find its focus, first of all. We were able to do this with Dragonlance; the setting is supported by numerous popular novels detailing epic adventures with memorable characters. We did this with Forgotten Realms as well; this popular RPG setting has its novels and characters, but gained its popularity through the setting, and through its multiple wildly popular video game series. Greyhawk has these things too, but that's not where we should be focusing.

What makes Greyhawk? The setting's history; the history of the Greyhawk setting is intrinsicly linked with that of the game itself. It was the personal setting of the game's primary creator, Gary Gygax, and was developed alongside the D&D game. It's the first D&D setting (well, aside from Blackmoor), and was linked to most of the classic AD&D modules. Every Player's Handbook has had spells named after guys from the setting. The world itself was mutable, and designed to be filled in by DM's where the books left things open. It was the major setting during Gygax's time with TSR, and the designers of 3E made many elements of the setting into the "default setting" for several years. That is where the focus needs to lie, because that is the setting's strength, it's the history that brings out the loyal fans' nostalgia.

Yes, the setting had novels, but their signifance and popularity are nothing compared to those of the Forgotten Realms, and absolutely pale in comparison to those of Dragonlance (none of them even have Wikipedia articles do they?) - the places and people of the setting and some of the major characters and deities all have their own articles (many of which are being merged to spare them from del-you-know what) and should be mentioned here, but only summarized. But the setting's major points for discussion are those which I mention above. So, let's discuss what we can do to make this one our next Good Article. BOZ (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellently said! I'll try and start helping out soon, once the Planescape: Torment GAN is done. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to look closely or do a full assessment, but one thing I can say is the use of Fair Use images definitely needs to be gotten under control. This article has way more than necessary; one or two might be justified, but five, with no clear indication of how they make a "significant contribution" to understanding of the topics in the article, would certainly not get past GAN. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could cut it down to the only two images not used in other articles, the Greyhawk logo and the cover of Saga of the Old City? BOZ (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

[edit]

We can probably use a good amount of this, or split it of into other articles, but for now it's cluttering things up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It, as well as the other lists, should certainly be changed into prose before a GAN. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; we've done it before! Some of these are already mentioned in the article, and we can just mention the rest as "also, these." BOZ (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about List of Greyhawk novels and accessories or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. The thing is, a lot of items are considered to be part of Greyhawk, without actually having the logo on the cover (at least the first 3/4 or more of what is listed below). For example, most of these modules are considered part of Greyhawk's world because maybe it mentions a location or two or a known NPC from the world. This is more true for the earlier modules, and some of the later ones are more deeply rooted in the lore of the setting. I think the thing is that later, Gygax and/or TSR said "this list of modules is official for Greyhawk." BOZ (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds problematic for including the list here or elsewhere. If an adventure includes some inscription about Vecna or something, but not much else from Greyhawk, it's kinda OR to then say "it's set in Greyhawk". The Underdark is apparently in Greyhawk and FR. Yikes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a source(s) besides fansites, but I'll be damned if I know what that is. :) Let's keep the list here until we find it. Quite possibly Dragon mag. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot of the colored cover modules mention Greyhawk straight out (Ghost Tower of Inverness cover). Actually, that cover says it contains a background scenario lined to Greyhawk. Meh. Like you say, let's just leave it here until we find a good use for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like look at this version of the cover to Tomb of Horrors - it mentions "possible locations for the tomb on the World of Greyhawk map"; this to me indicates that most of the older modules were simultaneously set in Greyhawk in a lot of people's minds, while being intentionally vague enough to be placed in any campaign setting. So, while as I said I'm sure there is a source somewhere for everything below stating that they officially take place in Greyhawk, most are really generic setting modules with notes on how to use them in Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk First Edition Modules

[edit]

Overview of development

[edit]

I've added a section near the top to try and explain to the uninitiated what the heck this is all about, trying to avoid the in-universe tag. Added citations, mainly interviews with EGG.Guinness323 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. The help is very appreciated. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

[edit]

I removed a large amount of information in the publication history which was simply wrong. Could someone post the actual text that was cited when the article talked about having significant information in Supplement I: Greyhawk about the setting? An actual examination of Supplement I shows that it says next to nothing about the Flanaess, but it's possible that Wizards of the Coast put out an incorrect "official" history that implies otherwise. Cadriel (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual source for this error is the 2004 publication 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons, which erroneously suggests that details of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign were published in Supplement I. I assume the author of that particular section of the book was either going from memory or just didn't bother to read the supplement. I am working on a revised article with more emphasis on its development, version by version, and a lot less "in-universe" fanboy stuff. I'm up to the publication of the 1983 boxed set. It should be ready for comments and suggestions in another couple of weeks.Guinness323 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We badly want to get this one up to GA status, as we've already done with Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance - it deserves to be there, and would have been there first if we had better sources available! BOZ (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, we have also gotten several WoG-related 1E AD&D era modules up to GA, including Dwellers of the Forbidden City, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Tomb of Horrors, and White Plume Mountain. We have nominated Against the Giants for GA, and I was recently working on Descent into the Depths of the Earth as I work on the Drow article. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, and I hope to be able to contribute to that version. I just made the change I did today because the error is so glaring to someone who's read the supplement. I go back to about '96 or so with Greyhawk, and would be happy to help with what I know. I do know some WoG historians who might be able to help furnish good sources to help get this article up to shape. Cadriel (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All help is good help. I work for a church, so the next ten days leading up to Easter are very busy, but I should be able to devote more time to this project after that. If anyone has any sources about what regions of WoG were created by Gygax and Kuntz before 1980--Greyhawk, obviously, and Dyvers for sure--and which regions were created by Gygax specifically for the publication of WoG, that would be most helpful. Also, there was an 18-month delay between the expected publication date of the WoG folio (Feb 1979) and its actual publication in August 1980. A review in Dragon in late 1980 infers there were several delays, and then in 1980, some sort of big event that prevented publication. Anyone have any idea what the problem was?Guinness323 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

[edit]

Greyhawk is the campaign setting, and I think it falls under the game/work of art title rule. The actual world (like Mars or Earth, as you said) is Oerth; plus Greyhawk was already italicized in the lead before I did my copy editing. I was trying to get it all consistent. Finally, I did not italicize Greyhawk when it was used as the name of the city or castle. I think it makes sense that way. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. "Greyhawk" does not refer to a specific publication or piece of art, but to a concept/world/setting/universe. Let's say I develop my own campaign world for D&D called "Ladium", a desert region on a much larger continent. When I refer to it, should I italicize "Ladium"? No, because it is not the title of a piece of art or publication, but a place. Greyhawk—as a term to denote "the environs in and around the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk"—existed as Gygax's home campaign for 8 years before he published his folio edition. The term "Greyhawk" was also in broad use before 1980, since all of Gygax's very popular D&D and AD&D modules published 1975–1979 were set in Greyhawk.
That's why there is one wiki for Greyhawk—an outline of how the campaign world was developed and revised from 1972–2008, and another for World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting—the specific publications by Gygax.
In short, the general term "Greyhawk" should not be italicized, since it refers to a general area/world/system/place, not a specific game or work of art title. Guinness323 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. You can undo my last edit, but I think the previous revision still had some inconsistencies in the italicization, so you might want to look it over. I can't handle searching the text again; my eyes glazed over last time. :) —Torchiest talkedits 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful hint for avoiding eye-glaze when making universal changes: Open an edit window. Copy and paste wiki from edit window into word-processor. Use word processor's "find and replace" function. Copy and paste revised text back into edit window. Much faster as well. Guinness323 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was using the search function in my browser, but I still had to determine whether the work Greyhawk was referring to the campaign setting, or the city and castle, which I didn't want to italicize. So I had to examine each use in turn. —Torchiest talkedits 19:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

[edit]

There are a confusing number of Greyhawk pages on wikipedia. While I understand that the castle, the dungeon, the city, and the world are all separate game concepts, it seems like merging some of them would save confusion and duplication of effort in the future. For starters, Flanaess should be merged here. ZedZed77 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, that this article is enormous, and Flanaess is pretty huge as well, and we don't really want to make a single article unreadable by virtue of length. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What about instead merging some of the smaller, less relevant articles? Oeridian agricultural gods, for example, should be in Greyhawk deities. 137.28.192.66 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC) ZedZed77 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll completely agree with that one. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input on article length. I've removed the merger proposal template from both this article and Flanaess. I'll try to merge smaller, less visible articles instead. ZedZed77 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article should merge with World_of_Greyhawk_Fantasy_Game_Setting

Melf, Male Elf rumor.

[edit]

This needs a citation for this rumored and false content as in many places Luke has disputed this backronym in an attempt to lay it to rest. or the commentary about Melf= M Elf needs to be removed. shadzar-talk 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of the Coast Greyhawk releases section missing Expedition products

[edit]

The 'Wizards of the Coast' section of the 'Greyhawk' article lacks any information about Expedition to the Demonweb Pits and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk. The 'Wizards of the Coast Greyhawk releases' section of the 'Greyhawk' article' is probably the place that they should be referred to. At the moment that section (and the '2008 to present' section that follows imply that WotC left all Greyhawk development to the RPGA. It would be nice to get that looked at. I think that Expedition to Demonweb Pits has less of a Greyhawk connection than Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, but there must be a real-world reaction to this that is relevant to the setting. Big Mac (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Help me. I cannot find the proper way indicate broken citation link or #115, so I cannot check the original source for a confusion between "so" appearing when it seems "do" is better.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to go to the thread myself and was unsuccessful. I even found the thread on a Google search, and got the same result. The page does say to contact an administrator, which you can do if you are an ENWorld member. This may be a temporary technical problem that may be resolved soon. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greyhawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greyhawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greyhawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Oerth and Flanaess

[edit]

Those articles likely don't pass WP:NFICTION, they have some interesting discussion of development, but it is all really a part of history of development of Greyhawk setting, no need to split it into various locations and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bissel (Greyhawk) redirects here but is not mentioned on the page

[edit]

Seems like that might confuse readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8880:7B40:64D6:3B8B:89E:EBB9 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Yes, I see what you mean. A lot of Greyhawk-related articles were recently merged into this one, and in the process we may appear to have "lost" some of the information, although it is actually still available under the redirect in this case. If you feel like there is something worth merging from there, you can always add it to this article. BOZ (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Veluna" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Veluna. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Veluna until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Plains of the Paynims" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Plains of the Paynims. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Plains of the Paynims until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greyhawk&oldid=1213547890"