Talk:Land of Black Ice

message: No evidence of notability is present in this article, neither in its content or its sources. Please do not remove the notabality cleanup template unless you have added reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please removed  when you add  to avoid redundancy. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *There is no redundancy in my view. I have restored the notability template, on the grounds that this purely in universe article and in its current form it is impossible to establish notability, as even if the in universe content were to be sourced from reliable secondary sources, there would be no real-world evidence of notablility. This article will have to be rewritten from a real-world perspective sourced from reliable secondary sources to have any chance of meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I am happy to go to RFC in support of this view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Wouldn't this be better served my merging this content to an appropriate Greyhawk or Blackmoor article?  Gavin you seem to want clean up things, why not be bold and take this on? Web Warlock (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because my edits would be reverted. You can already see this happens to me on a regular basis. I would love to help, but there is no consensus for such action in the  D&D Wikiproject. Merger has been tried already, but it has been reverted. This a common pattern for D&D articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do what I do.  Take your edits to a project page as a sub page in your user space.  IF you set this up and start working on a merge of anysort I will provide constructive edits and promise not to revert any edit of yours unless I talk to you first and give a detailed reasoning for the revert.  If you can do this for the bulk of the Greyhawk lands you could very well reduce scores of articles to 1 or 2.  Web Warlock (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: And to be fair. That undo was done by an anon ip account.  Web Warlock (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already merged, if anyone had bothered to look. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I had. But that was not really what I was looking for. Web Warlock (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, merging Greyhawk lands into Flanaess (like LoBI apparently already was, oddly enough, and now is again, oddly enough) is one of the items on my list as far as merging goes. I plan to start on this, and at least one other merge project, this week - god willing, if my internet connection holds up. :) (Is that a big if? Well, if you see me get it done, then no, but if my contribs list goes dead suddenly, then yes.) BOZ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok cool.  I will follow your lead. Web Warlock (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably came off as rude; my apologies. I looked again at what Gavin said, and I now see that he did realize that it had already been merged. I spruced it up a bit, so hopefully that is looking good. Notice that there are a few other lands redirected to that article, but not merged in yet. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same plan as BOZ on my to-do list, so maybe I can get working on it if his internet connection fails. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still here for now. :) If time allows tonight, I'll at least get the ones mentioned above properly merged into Flanaess: Baklunish Basin, Nyrond, Ferrond, Bright Lands, and Bissel (Greyhawk). Knights of the Watch should probably be redirected somewhere other than Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge