Talk:List of Greyhawk deities

message: On 18 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pholtus for a record of the discussion.  Rossami (talk) 07:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD

message: Would Orcus, as a Demon Prince, count as a Greater Power? According to the various books, demon princes and arch-devils don't generally count as Greater Powers.--Azathar 16:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orcus 

message: A lot of these are not Greyhawk, this can be fixed by sourcing every single one. Dominick (TALK) 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you offering to do so?--Robbstrd 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If not, please let me know which ones you think aren't Greyhawk, & I'll tell you where to find the information. The only ones who are not found in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer or the Living Greyhawk Deities doc are the Touv & Olman deities, which are found in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook.--Robbstrd 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't for me, but the sources need to be listed. It may be better if there was a way to separate the past Pre 3.0 LG Canon from the Post 3.0 Canon. I think a few dieties are from non-TSR/WOTC sources.  Am I offering? Well this is a cooperative project, I will offer to remove anyhting unsourced, and they can be put back later. The main dieties are all from one source, and that source can be easily listed. Dominick (TALK) 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about separating out the 3e stuff.  Separating that out is part of what I had in mind with my suggestion above under "Merge?" saying that I don't think we should merge the articles; but instead focus each of them differently. Fairsing 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not verified is the only tag I had. Citation needed is a better tag. Beory was listed there because she is no longer canon in 3.5, Beory is supposed to be "Mother Oerth". Perhaps we can do Greyhawk and the DnD dieties list, without controversy. If we have sources, we are golden. Dominick (TALK) 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a deity, peron, creature, etc, hasn't appeared in a 3.5 product does not mean they've been removed from the setting. In fact, according to Steve Wilson, "Beginning with TSR 11742, Gazeteer, “canon” as a concept becomes a non-essential point.  The official WotC stance of anything that is published by WotC with regard to Greyhawk in 3E is canon regardless of source (Dragon, Dungeon, modules, accessories, etc.)." --Robbstrd 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your source for everything 3e & 3.5e being "canon" & 2e & earlier not? I've heard no declaration by WotC saying that pre-3e GH material is no longer considered "canon."--Robbstrd 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Canon for 3.5 play? I guess thats the more precise way to say it, but really, you can make up the Church of Fred Fredburger and play it in 3.5 rules. I could mark up everything that is in the LGCS, or everything in 3rd edition books, and approach canon that way.  Dominick (TALK) 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing canon with "tournament-legal". "Canon" is most often used in reference to storylines, characters, events, etc, not to rules.--Robbstrd 14:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can finish over lunch. Dominick (TALK) 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing and non-canolical dieties 

message: I started with the text of this page for my Greyhawk cosmology page on my own MediaWiki site, however, I have expanded upon it rather significantly based on research through the Greyhawk published materials and other Web sources. If anyone wishes to use the information on that page, it's still under the GFDL (most of my site is CC-BY-SA-2.5, but pages which started with Wikipedia content are specifically noted and distributed under the GFDL). Of special interest would be the ordering by pantheon and the inclusion of the Olman and Touv pantheons. -Harmil 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greyhawk cosmology 

message: If someone has a good bot, the way to answer many of the where/how do we include this? could be solved by converting the information to a chart with appropriate columns (Name, spheres of influence, major/minor/demi, when introduced (when removed?), source of information, etc.)
Doing this manually would be a major pain, but could also be done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert to sortable chart 

message: Following an AfD of Obad-Hai in June, in which a majority of participants were fine with the idea of merging the page here, I'm opening a proper merge discussion. 
My original rationale for the AfD was that Obad-Hai fails our notability guideline for stand-alone articles in that it is entirely sourced to primary and affiliated sources (D&D game books and officially licensed publications), and has not received coverage from multiple independent secondary sources. Seeing how no edit has been made to the article since then, not even to add sources, my rationale still holds true and the article can't remain as a stand-alone, though there's certainly content that could be merged here.
Inviting all the users who took part in the AfD debate: User:User226, User:BOZ, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Vulcan's Forge, User:Robbstrd, User:Jclemens, User:Colonel Warden, User:Sangrolu, User:Dream Focus, User:Hobit, User:Masem, User:Torchiest, User:Miniapolis.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The closure appears to have been merely a snout count with no consideration being given to whether the rationale's were based on actual policy. Since the article still fails the test for stand alone article of having independent third party reliable sources, merge whatever is appropriate to this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: At this time I don't have a problem with a merge, but I'd like to wait a week or so to see if anyone has sources that count toward WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: there are plenty of ways of handling lists that are too long , another is to remove all of the excessive gamer cruft from this article. "we are too lazy to think of other options" is not a reason to leave an improperly sourced article as a stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge - I don't feel that a merge is required at this time.  This is a significant character in the game, appearing in many books over at least a three-decade span, and therefore significant independent coverage likely exists even if we do not have access to it at this time.  Wikipedia is not paper, and since there is no deadline, it is irrelevant if we need to wait another week, a month, a year, or even wait an indefinite time until this turns up.  BOZ (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: your personal claim of this being a "significant character" is not a policy based reason for a stand alone article. Do you have anything actually policy based or sources to support your claim of significance? (and re "not paper", likewise, we can, and per other policies, should, wait to have a stand alone article until those potential sources actually surface. Given that the article has been there for 6 years already and faced an AfD and none of these potential sources appeared, there can be no reason to believe a claim that they probably exist out there somewhere.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, BOZ's comment runs counter to WP:PAPER which states that "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies".  Besides, this is a merge, not deletion, anyone could easily restore the article if/when new sources arise even 10 years from now. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that I do agree with the additions of Jclemens and Colonel Warden as well. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: so you are stating that you also have no actual sources and no policy basis for your position that a stand alone article is appropriate, just that it might be a little work and you are too lazy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Obad-Hai]] merge proposal 

message: Paraphrasing what I just wrote at Talk:Saint Cuthbert (Dungeons & Dragons)#Deleted:
Now that Saint Cuthbert (Dungeons & Dragons) has been deleted, and redirects to this page, we have a circular redirect: the relevant subsection contains nothing but "", sending the reader right back to Saint Cuthbert (Dungeons & Dragons)! En: has no information on this important (well, important in-world) deity at all! Could someone with Admin privileges please either restore the article, or retrieve the deleted contents, and move them to List of Greyhawk deities#Saint Cuthbert?
Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article thankfully has not been completely deleted but redirected here. So the former content can be retrieved from the history, e.g. here, in case you want to selectively merge the information here. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: This is the case for many of the "see also" articles. Some of the broken redirects are rather amusing, e.g. Phyton (Dungeons & Dragons) which redirects to Metamerism (biology)#In plants. (Note that that article has been deleted.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, nice! I added a brief description of him in his section. :) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Cuthbert 

message: There is a Main Article link for St. Cuthbert, but then that main article just redirects to here. Either the main article needs to be reverted back to a full article not just a redirect, or the information once contained in that main article moved here. Dragonboyjgh (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I had not fixed that previously. Well, there you go, I merged one sentence in; if you feel like something more needs to be there, you can access the full text of the article here:  BOZ (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Cuthbert