Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Greyhawk

This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.

Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.
If you are not currently a project participant and wish to help you may still participate in the project. This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes.

Shortcut

WP:GH

Nice!

Nice! I was getting antsy for this! Let 'er rip!--Iquander 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra sections

This page was created automatically with a template, hence all the different sections. I've already deleted ("title"), added, & renamed a few, as I felt that would better suit our purposes. Does anyone have proposals for futher deletion, addition, or renaming? I'm thinking of deleting several of those at the bottom. We can re-add them later, if we feel the need.--Robbstrd 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

At some point, we will probably want some structure/style subpages for different categories of article, such as "Greyhawk places," "Greyhawk deities," "Greyhawk magical items," & "Greyhawk characters."--Robbstrd 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Style

I realize that I am more obsessed than most people (by necessity) with the accepted D&D style guides, but I think we should probably write role-playing as one word, "roleplaying," as TSR and Wizards of the Coast do. I know that's really minor, but in all cases I think we should err on the side of what is accepted practice for the publishers of the game. Yeah, I'm anal. Welcome to my life. :) --Iquander 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's similar talk over at the RPG Wikiproject. I really don't care either way. The Role-playing game article uses the hyphen, but the roleplaying article doesn't. The former article should probably be moved to roleplaying game, too. I guess I'll start writing it without the hypen & see what happens.--Robbstrd 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Iquander as well. No hyphen. Fairsing 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project template

I created a template to add at the top of the talk pages of all GH articles. I based it on a similar template used at the RPG wikiproject. Comments?--Robbstrd 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) You can see the template at Template:ProjectGreyhawk. To put it on a page, use {{ProjectGreyhawk}}.--Robbstrd 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New style references

I've added a sub-section on new style references with some examples. Feel free to update, alter, expand or remove. It's really just a suggestion based on emerging practices Wikipedia-wide. -Harmil 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly, this method essentially footnotes references. This would be better served under a "Notes" section, since "References" should be alphabetical.--Robbstrd 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this into the "Notes" section above it. See [1] & [2] about maintaining separate notes 7 references sections.--Robbstrd 00:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step back a bit. References is the section in which References go. The <references/> tag exists for this reason. However, there's currently no reasonable way to integrate auto-generated references from footnotes with general references that are simply placed in the References section. Because of this, large, featured articles have these sections in duplicate, listing all of the references in citation order in the Notes section, and then again in alphabetical order in the References section. This is, frankly, awful, but it's what we have. Wikipedia's technology is still struggling to keep up. In small articles (which is what almost all of the Greyhawk articles are) this is not required. We will typically have something like a module, whe the References section will list the module and perhaps a re-printing as a general reference for the whole article, or we will have an article for something like a deity where sources come from all over the canon. In cases like that, we'll proably want to stick to inline, new-style references, as there aren't any references that cover the whole article anyway.

I think it would be bad practice to start using 2 forms of referencing in GH articles, which is why I advocate adding a "Notes" section. Not everyone who writes GH articles is going to take the trouble to cite everything they use when writing an article, nor does everyone who thinks a reference should be listed want to go over someone else's work to determine exactly which source the information came from. I'm afraid insisting all references be in "cite-form" would turn people off from adding them at all, whereas "bibliography-form" would be more acceptable to many people. Let me clarify that I'm not against using the "cite-form" entirely, only that I think that those who wish to cite instead do it under a "Notes" section.--Robbstrd 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I don't see a need to have a Notes section UNLESS you mix the two types of references, and that should almost never happen. Instead, we can either write a References section manually or auto-popluate it using <references/>. If that section gets beyond, say 5 or so references (just to be totally arbitrary), then perhaps it makes sense to go all featured article on its associated parts and do the big duplicated Notes/References thing, but on the scale of stubs and short articles this is just cumbersome for the author and the reader. -Harmil 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to have both notes & refs for two reasons: 1) more uniformity; & 2) the possibility that someone will come along and expand the article further, including adding more references that might not be cited in the article, but are relevant nonetheless (particularly for future expansion). As for placing the least authoritative references first, I believe this is countered by having the notes section before references, as well as by having links to those footnotes in the article's text. You'll note that many academic works will have both foot/endnotes & a bibliography, which is essentially what the references section on Wikipedia is. Honestly, it would probably be better if all reference sections were relabeled as "Bibliography", but then thousands of articles would have to be changed.--Robbstrd 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you and I clearly don't agree (which is fine, and I respect that), we should probably fall back to Wikipedia policy, which is more along the lines of what you suggest. Notes should contain the <references/> and References should contain the alphabetized list of general references (which may be the same as, superset or subset of Notes). -Harmil 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Could I perhaps suggest an alternate userbox?

User:Harmil/Userboxes/WikiProject Greyhawk

-Harmil 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering, I got the background color from one of my favorite Greyhawk module covers: Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. -Harmil 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, but the only thing I'm worried about is that the image may not be considered fair use. A number of FR deity symbols were recently removed for the same reason (see this user's talk page.--Robbstrd 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, of course. Silly of me. Let me think about it. I'm sure I can come up with an image that's reasonable copyright wise and more emblematic than a bird. -01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There we go. How's that. Closest castle image I could find to the old Castle Greyhawk image that's being re-done for the cover of Expedition to Castle Greyhawk next year. -Harmil 04:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combining articles

Glad to see that Baklunish Basin survived its recent AFD, but I do think that Pablo-flores' "Closing Comment" here [3] may make sense for some of the geographic features and minor characters. I don't see any glaring problems here that require immediate action, but might be a good idea for us to keep the suggestion in mind as we go forward with the project. Fairsing 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that AfD had been mentioned here, I would have voted. Still, I would have voted keep conditionally. I think that it should be merged into two articles, but one of them doesn't exist yet: Baklunish Empire. As such it should be kept until then. My general feeling is that any feature smaller than the Flanaess should get its own article only if:

It is the primary subject of a module or the like that has its own article. E.g. Barrier Peaks.
It is called out in the source material as a nation-like region (e.g. Amedio Jungle or Bright Desert)

Otherwise, it should typically be merged into the next higher-scope article that does have its own page (e.g. Flanaess or perhaps the nation which contains the feature).

PS: Note that while some of my examples are redlinks, they do have links to them. -Harmil 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the reasoning behind merging Baklunish Basin into other articles, even though I personally feel every Greyhawk subject should have it's own article (yeah, I know--I can go a bit overboard:). As for what to include geographically, I think anything that has it's own entry in one of the three main Greyhawk campaign setting products (the 1983 boxed set, From the Ashes, & the LGG) should have its own article. This would include all nations, as well as places like the Phostwood, the Good Hills, and the Solnor Ocean. In addition, certain geographical features or collections of states have commonly-accepted names that are found throughout Greyhawk sourcebooks, such as the Sheldomar Valley, the Ulek states, and the Tilvanot Peninsula, so I'm not sure what should & should not be merged. Also, a number of nations & features share(d) the same space as a geographical feature, such as the Sueloise Imperium/Sea of Dust & the Bright Desert/Empire of the Bright Lands. In the last case, the LGG has separate entries for both, so I think articles for both would be appropriate (for a real-world example, look up Australia). Then we also have the problem of cities. Should Radigast City, Rauxes, & Rel Mord have their own entries? In general, I would advocate improving articles rather than merging them. Perhaps we could start a section on the project page listing articles needing improvement? We could give them a certain number of days, & if not improved within that time, they could be merged.--Robbstrd 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certianly with you when it comes to wanting it all ;) However, when it comes to Empire of the Bright Lands vs Bright Desert (just for an example), I think we should seek to cover geography and political divisions in the smallest number of articles. This isn't because both aren't important, but because most of the information about greyhawk is about the politics and personages, not the geography. We know trees from EGG, and we tend to have a bit of geography in some of the moudles and sourcebooks, but there's nothing when compared to the detail on political aliances, betrayals, wars, etc. With fiction, you have a limited amount of source material, and we should at least have the potential of creating a non-stub for every article about Greyhawk. -Harmil 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a breakdown similar to the way the LGG (and/or the Gazetteer) does things? I.e., one article for "Forests", one for "Mountains", one for "Hills and Highlands", etc. Most entries within a particular terrain type would be very short (one paragraph), but could still allow for a separate article if the geographical feature warrants it (such at the Nyr Dyv or the Bright Desert). -- BGilkison 04:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vecna

Just wanted to let you guys know, the recent issue of Dragon Mag (Oct. 2006 - Issue # 348 has a lengthy article on Vecna by Sean Reynolds and Samuel Weiss). Would have left this comment on the Vecna discussion page, but I've never edited Wikipedia and couldn't figure out the right place.

Safe travels,

Paul

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[4] Given that we have a Timeline of Faerun, why not something like that for Greyhawk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.11.242 (talk • contribs) .

There already is one: World of Greyhawk Timeline.--Robbstrd 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to Category:Fictional timelines.

Greyhawk vs. Living Greyhawk

What are the project members feelings toward incorporation of Living Greyhawk material and references into articles where appropriate? When I learned to play D&D some 25 years ago, Greyhawk was the "default" (i.e., only) published campaign out there, so I have some familiarity with the setting in and of itself. But I was reintroduced to it via the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign, so a lot of my current knowledge is from the campaign's elaboration on the original materials. When I have entered data (such as the Veluna page), I have consciously tried to limit myself to stopping at 591 CY, since that's where the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer "freezes" the world, but some events (such as the death of Veluna's Canon Hazen at the hands of a lich in 594 CY) seem significant enough that they might warrant a mention. In that particular case, I've called out that the event is specific to the Living Greyhawk campaign, but just looking for other suggestions (if any)? BGilkison 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, where appropriate, each Greyhawk article should have a section titled "Subject in the Living Greyhawk campaign" or the like. All articles concerning Greyhawk should default to the Greyhawk setting (rather than the LG campaign), the "bible" of which is currently the LGG, UNLESS the article's subject is unique to the LG campaign. I do NOT advocate having separate articles for subjects in the setting AND campaign such as "Hazen (Greyhawk)" & "Hazen (Living Greyhawk)," as that would just be going overboard. Living Greyhawk sources should be listed in the References & External links sections, however, as future writers for the setting may wish to incorporate LG elements into their work.--Robbstrd 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking I would agree with Robbstrd. LG references should be appropriately sourced, so it is clear where the "new" information comes from. If there is a discrepancy between an LG resource and a non-LG resource, that can be noted right in the text of the article. Certainly I wouldn't want to see separate articles on the same subject for Greyhawk and LG. Fairsing 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob. "Subject in the Living Greyhawk campaign" is the way to go. I'd hate to see LG developments passed off as "official" published campaign developments, though. For instance, I understand that Nyrond, Keoland, and a bunch of other places have new leaders due to events in LG modules. Since those adventures are not widely distributed, I think it best (at present) to relegate these developments to a special LG-specific section. --Iquander 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me as well; for those entires I have already made, I will start moving all things "Living" to a separate section. While I was here, I thought I would point out a resource that might prove helpful when tracking down citations. The Onnwal region has posted on its site a rather large (916Kb) PDF file titled the Encyclopedia Greyhawkia. It is a 761 page index of just about everything Greyhawk you could imagine (and not just for the Living campaign) -- names, places, and where one can find the reference, be it a module, a Dragon magazine issue, etc. - BGilkison 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Greyhawkia is a great reference, but it wasn't originally developed by the Onnwal LG triad. I downloaded a version off the net somewhere many moons ago, but I can't remember where. Does Iquander or anyone else have a correct reference for this so if we use it as a source we can put the proper reference in? Fairsing 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Encyclopedia Greyhawkania is the work of former GREYtalker Jason Zavoda. Though by no means a complete index (it's missing a few minor sources), it's far and above the best one we have.--Robbstrd 18:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry

I have started to add each country's coat of arms (not an image, but my best assessment of the blazoning) to the matching article (see Bright Lands as an example). I have been adding it as a separate sentence/paragraph immediately after the opening "In the WOG, X is a political state ..." paragraph, but I was wondering whether it might be more appropriate in another location, such as under "Government"? -- BGilkison 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nation entries are modeled after the CIA World Factbook, I'd put the "Coat of Arms" description as the last subsection under the "Government" section.--Robbstrd 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the change you made to the article on the Yeomanry, I had started to add a Heraldry section to the other articles I had already posted/edited; I've changed the Yeomanry article to match. "Heraldry" seems to me a more appropriate sub-section title, as it can encompass not only the coat of arms, but other marks of recognition as well -- flags, for example, or badges of office associated with particular groups within a political state's control. BGilkison 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Heraldry" is a better choice.--Robbstrd 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else on the project familiar with heraldry? In trying to describe the marshalling for both Grosskopf's (from the Bandit Kingdoms) and the Duchy of Tenh's coats of arms shown here, I'm coming up with nil for the symbols depicted, and I'm not sure whether they are traditional (although obscure) devices, or if they are meant to represent a Tenha/Flan rune of some kind? (IIRC, Grosskopf and Tenh had some connection as described in the LGG, so the similarity in style for their respective coats of arms, leads me to believe these might be Flan-specific devices...) -- BGilkison 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. You may want to solicit advice from the various Greyhawk messageboards, newsgroups, & listservs out there, such as GREYtalk, the Canonfire! boards, the Greyhawk boards at Wizards.com, the Living Greyhawk newsgroup for the Bandit Kingdoms (I don't think Tenh has one, but perhaps the Pale group can help), etc.--Robbstrd 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Creative Origins" usage

Since I haven't run across any Greyhawk articles that have this section yet (perhaps I'm hitting the wrong ones!), what is appropriate usage? I was thinking about this while updating the Blackmoor page, in that much of the Blackmoor history described in the LGG seems to be a direct reflection of events from Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, including the general physical setting (swampy northern region), the 'Egg of Coot', etc. (if I'm not mistaken, the Lendore Isles also appears for similar reasons, as that was the setting of Len Lakofka's home campaign). Should the Blackmoor (Greyhawk) article (for example) include a brief synopsis of the relationship between Gygax's and Arneson's campaign, with appropriate links (e.g., to the Blackmoor page)? Or would something like a "See Also" suffice? -- BGilkison 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arneson's Blackmoor campaign should be mentioned in "Creative origins," & a link to the page under "See also" should also be there. As far as I see it, "Creative origins" should be used to describe any real-world origins or circumstances involved in the creation of the subject or it's name. The Co section for Perrenland would mention that the nation is named after Jeff Perren, while the Co section for Tenser would mention not only that it's a re-spelling of "Ernest," but also that the character was a PC of EGG's son, Ernie Gygax, in EGG's home campaign.--Robbstrd 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels?

Should we include information from the novels, such as the death of a certain drow in Against the Giants? I added that as trivia on the Against the Giants article and Eclavdra article.SCGhosthunter1 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far Greyhawk goes, events in novels are rarely regarded as canon. IMO, rather than placing Eclavdra's death under a "Trivia" header, I think novel events would be better placed under a "Subject in other media" section.--Robbstrd 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the spoiler issue! Don't tell people who died in what novel. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always mark it with a spoiler tag. As for the issue of canon or not, this is a complex question. I think it would be fair to note that the character was killed in such and such a novel within the confines of a spoiler section, without attempting to determine if that fact is "canon" or not. See the point regarding Iuz in this section of the main GH article for example. Fairsing 03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Greyhawk reference

Should we refer to Living Greyhawk entities in place articles? Dominick ^(TALK) 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general consensus has been to place LG elements in a separate section (ie, "Subject in Living Greyhawk").--Robbstrd 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Are all images associated with Greyhawk and Living Greyhawk under copywrite? Should wikipedia articles be image-free for that reason? Are there any fair-use images available for articles? Eleos^Prime 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the context in which they are used. If you're unsure whether using an image falls under fair use, it's probably best not to use it at all.--Robbstrd 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which contexts are which images allowed to be used? Can the heraldry be used in a box on a region page? Can an image of a famous NPC be used on his or her page? Are all of them under copywrite? I am looking for a definitive answer. Eleos^Prime 14:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest searching through the Wikipedia guidelines & MOS for more information. Someone once tried using the WotC holy symbol images for the deity articles, but that isn't considered fair use. To be safe, I'd just stick to images of products, such as book & magazine covers.--Robbstrd 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Eleos^Prime 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New guideline on fiction: Delete Greyhawk-related articles?

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for article guidelines

I would recomend that WikiProject Greyhawk adopt a more rigorous guideline for the creation of articles, such as those adopted by WikiProject Video games. I suggest that you make a copy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and copy it to a new page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article guidelines. You can then ammend it to fit in with the characteristics of RPG. You would be advised to keep as closely to the Video guidelines; that way you can always use them as a precedent in any disputes.

The lack of guidelines means that many Greyhawk articles appear to have been

created in contravention to the notability criteria set out in WP:Fiction;
they include lists of references or external links but article sources remain unclear because they lack in-text citations; and
they are too in universe to justify an enyclopedic entry.

A small sample of such articles include:

In addition, the list of deities that make up the Oeridian pantheon also may require cleanup or merger. Please be advised that unless notability of these fictional characters, events and places can be evidenced by independent secondary sources, these articles are potential canidates for Proposed deletion or Nominated deletion. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ket (Greyhawk) is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ket (Greyhawk). — RJH (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't kidding about a small sample. Please visit RPGproject for a current discussion regarding recent happenings. Turlo Lomon 10:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with Isle of the Ape. I've done a lot of preliminary work, but I need to get some sleep now. Someone needs to find the original reviews from when it was published in hard copy. They didn't have internet review sites back then. Turlo Lomon 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otiluke

Hi. An IP address, whose other edits have not all been in keeping with our standards recently added some content ([5]) to Otiluke. Since the article is tagged as being under this Wikiproject I assume some of you know something about the subject I was hoping someone could check over the edit to see if it's an appropriate addition. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk locations (redirects)

Unless there are strong objections, I plan to start redirecting the great majority of articles in Category:Greyhawk locations to the page Greyhawk. I'll use the template Template:R from merge as suggested above. A few of them like Temple of Elemental Evil should not be merged (but, of course will likely need some more sources). Why am I doing this? Well, these have been recently tagged for notability concerns and lack of references. I generally agree that they don' satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Any thoughts? --Craw-daddy | T | 06:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some redirects are needed, but not as an absolute. I need to find my map set. Instead of one article for every facet of an area, we could have one for an area, with subsections covering the major cities, etc. I am just not sure what items have enough information to warrent an article about (I'm an FR player now - havenlt played in Greyhawk since the 80s). Turlo Lomon 06:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk (general cleanup)

Members of this project may want to begin the cleanup that will inevitably be necessary as many of the articles related to this project will likely be receiving various tags. I think that an editor will likely be systematically going through the categories tagging articles for notability, lack of sources, etc. For example, the category of Category:Greyhawk locations mentioned above, and the category Category:Greyhawk deities. Most of these articles are (rightly) being tagged for notability as they lack sources. I would suggest that memebers of this project figure out how best to reorganize/merge/etc. relevant articles now, and begin the process of doing so. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I fully expect all 200 articles in Category:Greyhawk deities to soon enough receive notability tags. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for input from other members of Wikiproject Greyhawk, but if it is lacking, I will be using my best judgement to resolve this issue before we are flooded with AfDs. Turlo Lomon 05:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on moving material to a Greyhawk wiki[6], but am having trouble keeping up with Gavin.collin's deletion quest.--Robbstrd 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold : ) - jc37 09:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Afd discussion close

I've closed the afd as no consensus for deletion period was made, although I've left the option for discussion on where or whether or not it will be redirected, though the arguments for redirecting were stronger. I've left the article untouched for now, in case if any merging is necessary when the redirecting operation occurs since User:Turlo Lomon is suggesting various redirects, so I will let the discussion on that continue on the appropriates articles or here.

Sorry I've messed up on one summary the link should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Iuz‎ for the discussion.JForget 00:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Greyhawk Regions - Cleanup proposals

The articles which make up Living Greyhawk Regions require cleanup, as they have issues with notability, in universe perspective and do not have any footnotes to verify their primary sources. I would recomend deletion, as I have searched for reliable secondary sources and found none. If anyone has an alternative proposal, do let me know. --Gavin Collins 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slew of Deletions

I should have brought this here first!

Wind Dukes of Aaqa‎, Miska the Wolf-Spider‎, Brandobaris, and likely others are up for deletion. Undoubtedly, there will be more. BOZ 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and such

Many game modules have been marked with notability tags. I thought that I should mention that I have recently (entirely by accident) stumbled across some of the legal document regarding a 1992 lawsuit between TSR and Game Designers' Worskhop regarding their Dangerous Journeys role-playing game. Some of this information can be found here, and you can also check the directory index for some other links. Seems like this can be used to help argue for notability of these game modules/other books as they were specifically named in this lawsuit as sources for the "derivative" works of Dangerous Journeys. Cheers. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it just occurred to me that the book Lost Worlds by Lawrence Schick has secondary source references for every D&D module up to about the middle of second edition. Editors looking to address notability concerns regarding these modules would do well to consult that source. Iquander (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Beltar

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beltar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)

Merge Proposals

Hello Greyhawk fans. I have spent the better part of my day working on the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer article. It occurs to me that it might better if it was merged into the World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting.
I figure while I am at it I will also merge in Greyhawk Adventures, From the Ashes (Dungeons & Dragons) and Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins articles into the World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting as well.
There is a method to my madness here.
By themselves these articles are lacking in sources that point to their notability, but together they present a much stronger article. Plus each product is in a sense an update of the product before it. So there is the continuity in one article. There is also precedent for this with the Player’s Handbook, all editions are in one article.
This would help with all the AfDs we have been getting of late by making one, much stronger article. Web Warlock (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunndi

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! I've written the same at Talk:Greyhawk before realising this project was here. PamD (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone got any secondary sources for the article? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do. Web Warlock (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk-related articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently about 170 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 304 articles are assigned to this project, of which 198, or 65.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Greyhawk participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Greyhawk participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since this project has been involved in the dispute regarding him, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work force?

Since this project has been relatively inactive lately and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject has been covering most of its articles, I was wondering if there would be any opposition against making this project into a work/task force of the D&D project. Please add comments at WT:D&D. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]