Talk:Lolth

message: :However, there appears to be some controversy regarding the status of the Demonweb Pits in that particular campaign: the 3rd edition campaign setting says that the Demonweb Pits are a separate plane, but in the novel Extinction by Lisa Smedman they are explicitly referred to as part of the Abyss, namely the 66th layer (as in the "default" cosmology). Lolth's Third Edition domains are Chaos, Destruction, Evil, and Trickery (and Drow, Darkness, and Spider in the Forgotten Realms).
The whole point of the War of the Spider Queen series is to "move" the Demonweb Pits out of the 66th and into another plane, is it not? So it should be all sorted out and there shouldn't be any controversy? (Haven't read the last book so I still don't know the whole deal.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Demonweb Pits 

message: Im almost positive it is spelled Lloth ..... is anyone else not extremely surpised at this blatant error?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.176.117 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ummmmmmmmm 

message: In order to justify a removal of those godawfully annoying templates, it might be worth looking at the 3rd party drow related books by Mongoose publishing (The Drow War" module series, and Quintessential Drow) and Green Ronin (Plot and Poison: A guidebook to drow). However veiled (or not) their usage of Lolth might be, they might be some viable 3rd party sources if anyone has access to them to check and see.Shemeska (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding more 3rd party sources 

message: I am going to add many more references to Lolth today including appearances in the D&D cartoon, several novels that focus on her, all the game books (both TSR/Wizards and others) as well a bit of work that describes how she was enspired by both Lilth and Shelob.  If this turns out to be as much information as I believe it will be I will remove the notability tags and work on removing the rest. Web Warlock (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with Shemmy above; anything you can do to get these tags removed is appreciated.  They sure do ugly up an article! BOZ (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems there are people here that would rather waste everyone's time buy putting these tags in instead of doing the work needed. It's lazy and it's stupid, and if you are too lazy or too stupid to do the real work needed here the get the hell out of my way.  Thanks BOZ, I know anything you have will be welcome too.  Been very busy of late working on that second Ph.D. Web Warlock (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *The tags are there to involve as many editors as possible (which seems to be happening), so that secondary references can be added and the other cleanup issues can be addressed. I suggest that the cleanup tags remain until the cleanup has been effected. Thanks, --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Good luck with that, WW. :) Been pretty busy myself lately, just with silly Wiki-things, like getting the monster charts ready. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *I would ask that the notability cleanup template is restored; opinion of one editor is not evidence of notability, but reliable secondary sources are.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *That is not the issue that is being debated. The question is should the notability (fiction) template also be added because there are no reliable sources cited as evidence?--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not happy with the 3rd opinion? Honestly Gavin, this again is where your unfamiliarity with the topic is a real stumbling block. Some additional sources are needed to support Lolth's notability, but to anyone familiar with the character and its publication history, the notability itself isn't even remotely in question.Shemeska (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *So you admit the article does not have sufficient reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability? Then restore the cleanup template, and this issue will be addressed. You must admit, if I had not put it there in the first place, this dicussion and the addition of sources to date would not have happened. Please restore the notability template.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that at all Gavin. Additional sources would help -support- the notability, which is something multiple editors have already stated. The notability isn't in question to anyone except to you it appears. Again, with your lack of familiarity on the topic and its publication history in various media, you apparently don't see what those of us who do know about the topic understand: Lolth is notable. You don't agree it seems, but coming from a position of little knowledge on the topic, your opinion on the matter is coming from a considerably weaker position than those of us who do. And myself and others are still waiting for you to answer why you've chosen to slap tags all over the place on RPG associated topics when you know so little about them, versus any other topic on wikipedia. You've been directly asked that multiple times by multiple editors, and you've avoided providing an answer. It stretches other editors' desire to assume good faith on your part on these tags given the appearance of you just not liking the entire subject.Shemeska (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think if this article were taken to AfD on notability grounds the nomination would be snowed closed within five minutes. Lolth is a major figure in a number of novels and popular campaign settings. There is more than enough material to justify a separate descriptive (viz. not in-universe) article in addition to mentions on Drow (Dungeons & Dragons), List of Forgotten Realms deities, and List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The question of whether this notability is asserted in a way accessible to the casual reader is not what the  tag is intended to address. I think that if the current call for more independent sources is addressed, the assertion of notability will naturally follow. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Lots of editors say Lolth is notable, but none provide any evidence other than primary sources. Notability is attested by reliable secondary sources: this the point of the cleanup template: to attract those sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If anyone has access to them, Lolth is presented under a OGL-friendly name in several modules/books "The Drow War" by Mongoose publishing. "Plot and Poison" by Green Ronin publishing may also refer to Lolth in such a manner, and there's also the Billy & Mandy episode which was heavily inspired by Lolth and drow. I don't have a clue how to properly cite that episode however. The three of those are also entirely independant of TSR/WotC for sourcing purposes.Shemeska (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable_topics_merit_individual_articles proposed policy section may explain my point - Lolth is a significant figure in a clearly notable fictional universe. The issues of sourcing and tone are better covered by the present tags. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *Added the use of lolth as street slang, and removed notability. That should rid the tmplates for Lolth at least, lolth!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbabyhead (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the tags 

message: Here are valid secondary sources which may benefit the article/merge target if worked in:
*Magic, Monsters, and Make-Believe Heroes
*Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy
*Lilith und Lolth - very interesting German comparison between the fictional and the real-world goddess/mythological figure
*There and Back Again - Tolkien, Gamers, and the Remediation of Exclusion through Fantasy Media - the section on Lolth is short but adds a new dimension by analysing the social or psycholocial background of the figure, possible mysogynic, and so on.
Daranios (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: More secondary sources