Talk:List of Greyhawk deities

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

VFD[edit]

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)

The result of the discussion was to move it to its current title. Ben Standeven 02:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will have to look this up, but I think Pholtus is listed as Lawful Good. Yup he is in the Complete Divine as a LG not a LN.

Orcus[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Do we really need two separate lists for generic and Greyhawk deities, especially considering most of the deities on the former page are rather obscure non-PHB deities? I believe List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons should be merged into this page and if nobody objects I plan to do just that. Would anybody find it useful to have a separate list of the PHB deities, or possibly some kind of markup for them? --Maggu 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, BUT a number of those deities aren't Greyhawk deities at all (such as the Pearl Dragon, Opal Dragon, etc), & some of them are exclusive to Greyhawk (such as Ye'Cind & some of the hero deities) & shouldn't be on the generic D&D page in the first place. Perhaps a better solution would be to reserve that page for deities found in non-setting specific sources, such as the core books, Libris Mortis, BoVD, etc? I'll start off by removing the GH-specific gods from that page. Robbstrd 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have amalgamated the two pages and redirectd this one to Greyhawk Deities.Guinness323 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Greyhawk is however the default cosmology in D&D, and the Greyhawk pantheon is the "D&D pantheon". I consider deities in books such as Libris Mortis, Book of Vile Darkness and others to be first and foremost Greyhawk deities, even though a number of them (notably Corellon, Moradin, Gruumsh and others) are FR deities as well. At the very least the deities in the core books and Complete Divine are Greyhawk deities.
Still, we do have a few problematic books. One such example is Deities & Demigods, which among others include Greek and Norse gods. Pearl Dragon, Opal Dragon, and others is another example. How about we rename "List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons" to "List of other Dungeons & Dragons deities", specify that it's for deities that doesn't belong anywhere else, and sort them according to source? (In other words more or less your suggestion, although I don't quite agree about what belongs there.) --Maggu 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair, though I'd prefer that the criteria for including deities on the Greyhawk list from non-core sources (Libris Mortis, et al) be more than simply apprearing in said source. For example, if the deitie's description connects them to an established GH deity (such as Evening Glory in Libris Mortis, IIRC), fine, but those without such context should be on the "List of other Dungeons & Dragons deities" instead.Robbstrd 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds both illogical and too vague to me. Deities in the same chapter could thus appear on different lists? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having the lists? Furthermore, I think there might be cases where it would not be entirely clear what list a deity belongs on. And for that matter, explaining the policy in the first place so that result is consistent doesn't seem entirely easy to me. --Maggu 14:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maggu, theres a fundamental problem with differentiating Grewhawk deities and these 'other' deities. If Grewhawk is the default campaign setting then do all deities that have an unspecified setting belong to Greyhawk by default? I think the best solution is a list of 'other d&d deities' that dont explicitly belong in greyhawk, but there needs to be a simple method of deciding what's what. -- Lewis 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite intimate with Greyhawk, but I realize few others are. How about this: If the deity appears in one of the three "core" 3/.5E books, or a sourcebook that says "Greyhawk" somewhere on the cover, then the deity belongs on the Greyhawk list. Otherwise, put them in the "other" category. Robbstrd 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words more or less your previous suggestion? My objections still stand. Let me give two examples to clarify. Libris Mortis has five deities: Afflux, Doresain, Evening Glory, Nerull and Orcus. With your suggestion Nerull would thus be on the Greyhawk list, since he's in both the PHB and the LGG (Living Greyhawk Gazetteer). Orcus should surely be on the Greyhawk list, but I'm not sure which sourcebook he might be found in so I wouldn't know where to put him. The other three goes on the "other" list. Does that make sense?
Second, Complete Divine contains a number of extra deities. However, Complete Divine is not a core book and it doesn't say "Greyhawk" on the cover, so these goes in the "other" list. Well, at least until someone comes along and points out that actually all these deities are in the LGG as well. Then they all get moved to the Greyhawk list. And so on. No, I'd much prefer that everything is put on the Greyhawk list, unless it's clear that it's not a Greyhawk deity, such as for the gods in the Norse pantheon. However, perhaps we should use the word "independent" rather than "other"? --Maggu 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on updating Greyhawk articles by the way. I havn't got any further than thinking I should write an article on Istus (since I'm playing a Cleric of Istus/Diviner at the moment), but now a lot of things look much better. --Maggu 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's an Istus stub already, so feel free. Robbstrd 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed. --Maggu 14:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this issue resolved yet? No one has said anything in a month. Can the tag be removed? BOZ

No. I've been meaning to write a followup on this. I'm not sure how to resolve it. I would prefer consensus and we don't seem to have it. I guess it would help if a few more people gave us their opinion. Personally, I still think this should be the policy for the Greyhawk list:
Greyhawk is the default setting and pantheon for Dungeons & Dragons. Unless its description says otherwise, any deity from an official D&D source belongs on this list.
Furthermore, I've changed my position somewhat. I think the list of deities of Dungeons & Dragons should just be deleted and not renamed (after its content has been merged with the Greyhawk list). I mean, what's the purpose of the lists? There seem to be little point in having a list with two or three entries. By the way, there aren't even any article for the Diamond/Opal/Pearl Dragon. Are there currently any deites beside those three that would not be on the Greyhawk list with the above definition? --Maggu 11:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be OK to remove the non-human deities from the Greyhawk list which also appear in the generic D&D list. I would be a bit more cautious on removing the overlapping human deities (Kord, Pelor, Obad-Hai, etc), as for about 25 years they were very much unique to the Greyhawk setting, and only became available as generic campaign options with the advent of 3E. That said, there are numerous human (and a few non-human) deities that are still totally unique to Greyhawk, and it wouldn't make sense to merge them into a generic D&D deities list, as they are not at all used in the "generic setting".

I agree with the statement made by another user:

Greyhawk is the default setting and pantheon for Dungeons & Dragons. Unless its description says otherwise, any deity from an official D&D source belongs on this list.
I know it wasn't always this way, but the way it is now any product WotC publishes that is not for FR or Eberron should be assumed to be Greyhawk. However, for us historians, any of the 'original' Greyhawk gods from back in the day should be noted either on their own sublist or with ** next to them or something. (Bill, april 21, 2006)

Maybe a good starting point for a "List of Greyhawk deities" is the Living Greyhawk Deities Document. I think more "generic" Gods from Non-core D&D-products like Complete Warrior should not be on that list. I think, having two separate lists for "D&D Deities" and "Greyhawk Deities", which may have similiar entries might be a good idea. (Frank, May 8, 2006)

This issue is really a challenge to wrap your brain around, so I'm not surprised there hasn't been consensus on this yet. I think I would prefer to see the two lists remain separate, although somewhat re-worked. For me, the "List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons" page should list all deities for the current edition of D&D that are not FR or Eberron-specific. This would include the list from the PH, Deities & Demigods, and any other 3e and 3.5e publications that don't specify a different pantheon (Libris Mortis, Complete Divine, whatever). It would *not* include 1e/2e deities from Greyhawk or other sources that haven't been officially incorporated into the current version of the game (those currently listed in the article would be removed). The second list, "List of Greyhawk deities", would be more comprehensive as a historical archive list of all deities that have ever been introduced into the Greyhawk setting in whatever edition, ideally with an indication of the D&D publication(s) in which they were referenced as being part of the setting. My logic here is that the "List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons" becomes a quick reference for those folks interested in understanding the game as it is today, and the "List of Greyhawk deities" becomes a resource that wonky Greyhawk scholars and game historians can use as a true full-blown Greyhawk resource. Ok, I guess that's my 2 cents! Fairsing 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fairsing's reasoning for keeping the two lists separate is sound.--Robbstrd 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As no one's commented on this in nearly a month, & there appears to be no consensus, I'm going to remove the merge tags.--Robbstrd 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing and non-canolical dieties[edit]

A lot of these are not Greyhawk, this can be fixed by sourcing every single one. Dominick (TALK) 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering to do so?--Robbstrd 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

As a separate comment, I'm not sure there's a great problem here or that this article requires a frenzy of citations. I did a quick scan of the article, and the list seems legit to me (speaking as a 25-year Greyhawk veteran). The "Not verified" tag seems like an over-reaction. I agree that there's some value to citing the sources for each of the deities, but the situation doesn't seem so dire as to warrant that tag (implying that the information may be highly unreliable, which it doesn't seem to be). For example, Beory was moved into a "Non-Canon" heading, but she is clearly listed in From the Ashes as a Greyhawk goddess. Also, the headings "Canon" and "Non-Canon" are difficult ones to use here; I changed them to something more generic. There's no universal definition of what counts as "Canon," so using those terms is likely to cause some major disagreements; I recommend we stay away from those terms in this list. Fairsing 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.)." [1]--Robbstrd 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New question: How shall we separate 3/3.5 Canon from unused Canon. Do we just ignore the 2.0 muck up of lists? Should we divide sections separate? How about LGCS lists? Dominick (TALK) 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke, 3e and 3.5 stuff is all canon. DnD 2e stuff is not. Pre 3e stuff should be separated. The references look good. I think the LG Dieties list 2.0 would be the latest and best mantained reference. I am going to use the <ref name="LGCS">[http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LG_Deities.zip Living Greyhawk] Deities 2.0</ref> and at the bottom insert a section ==Notes and references== <div class="references-small"> <references/> </div> so it is easier to source each one. Dominick (TALK) 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can finish over lunch. Dominick (TALK) 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk cosmology[edit]

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)[reply]

Convert to sortable chart[edit]

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)[reply]

Obad-Hai merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge Obad-Hai into List of Greyhawk deities. Content policies/guidelines applicable here include WP:FAILN (topics that do not meet WP:GNG with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages) and summary style (such as WP:AVOIDSPLIT –while not a new split, any evidence that the subtopic can demonstrate its own notability would likely still be around after the new split). Information that also is relevant includes reasons for merge and merger proposed after a deletion discussion. From the below discussion, consensus is that the topic does not meet GNG. Arguments from those opposing the merge, such as Wikipedia is not paper, the primary references consider Obad-Hai a significant character in the game, articles are needed to handle multiple valid targets, and the target is too big were challenged and shown to not be as strong as arguments supporting the merge. On balance, consensus is to merge Obad-Hai into List of Greyhawk deities. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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) Given the arguments below by BD2412 and Jclemens, I don't think merging is the best idea. Not really happy with the level of sourcing though. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are plenty of ways of handling lists that are too long [2], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per my rationales articulated elsewhere: content that belongs to multiple different fictional works cannot be effectively merged to any one work. In this case, we have games and fictional works. Even if all the fictional works were one trilogy with an overarching article (they're not), and even if he only ever appeared in one edition of one game (he doesn't), there's still multiple valid merge targets, so the simple solution is to retain one article. This is acknowledged elsewhere in WP:NBAND criterion 6, where a non-notable musician is to be kept if there's no one appropriate notable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • there are significant orders of magnitude difference between a real person and a fictional god. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Faulty reasoning. That there are multiple merging targets (but I don't believe so) doesn't mean that WP:GNG magically doesn't count. If that's a real issue, then let's make the target the most overarching article (List of Dungeons & Dragons deities) but that's certainly not an excuse to violate policies. WP:NBAND is not at all what Jclemens claims, and there's a reason why it's WP:NBAND and not WP:FICTION.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger At 90K, the list page is too large per WP:SIZE. Bundling a large number of topics together in this way is inefficient and clumsy for the reader, especially when using the mobile interface, as people increasingly do. The list should be kept simple and skeletal while the details are on individual pages. Individual pages for the entries facilitate navigation when the reader knows the particular topic that he wants. Warden (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:SPINOUT#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. One way or another, we'll have to agree on merging Obad-hai somewhere, otherwise it's deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I see there is WP:TOOBIG and so my !vote stands. Your claim that I have to agree with you is absurd. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Warden (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how "otherwise it's deletion" is valid, when the article at issue has already been nominated for deletion, and consensus was fairly solid in favor of keeping it. (Note: I am, in general, a mergist, but not so much where the proposed target article is already very large). bd2412 T 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:NOTPAPER, "too big" is a not an issue when content (especially plot summary) can be trimmed at will to make room for more content. I'm merely proposing the merge as the AfD consensus was fairly solid in favor not of keeping, but of merging (and I consider the AfD close rationale faulty)...however if this discussion establishes there's no proper merge target, I won't have any problem to renominate the article for AfD, and to see the content gone for good.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            I find your implied threat - that if you don't get the result you are looking for from this merge discussion, that you will re-nominate the article for deletion until you get the result you are looking for - particulary concerning considering the advice given to you by the closer of your very recent RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:DELAFD completely supports renomination, especially with a previous "no consensus" AfD result, and the same notability concerns raised here by several other users. However, with "Implied threat" and the misquoting my words it seems you're forgetting WP:AGF.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • there was NOT a consensus to keep. what the closer stated was that they did not see a consensus to "delete". however, it is abundantly clear that they did not actually take into consideration the policy basis for the !votes and just counted noses. The actual consensus position was "delete or merge". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - That article has nothing but a small paragraph and the completely pointless Publication history section, so that leaves a small paragraph to merge. The majority of this article should be pared down to a few sentences a piece like List of Forgotten Realms deities, so its size is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with respect to the merge proposal. As it currently stands there is little left in the article suitable for merging, although I note from the edit history that it has been recently trimmed extensively. Given that the rationale of the closing admin (User:Lankiveil) for the AFD has been questioned/discussed/assumed above, I suggest that they be contacted for their views and their rationale behind the close as no consensus to delete; I don't know whether the notification function will trigger on this reference so I will so advise.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was awhile ago, but my feel was at this AFD that while there were policy based arguments used, they were entirely subjective in nature. "Is this an independent source?", and that sort of thing. The participants could not even come to a consensus on that. The close was simply therefore an acknowledgement that there was not at the time any agreement on a course of action, nor any compelling policy based reason to act despite that lack of consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • VF, you make a good point; the majority of (admittedly unsourced and in-universe style) material was trimmed from the Obad-Hai article very early on in this discussion[3]. I can't start today, but perhaps beginning tomorrow I can have a go at rebuilding this one from scratch. BOZ (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about cleaning up and trimming lists that some (including you) have deemed so "big" that they supposedly prevent further merging instead ? Anyone could look through the history to find mergeable content (if more was needed), "rebuilding" doesn't solve the notability issue raised here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - My reasoning is entirely unchanged from the AfD. To wit: there are (still) zero non-primary sources to support a stand-alone WP:GNG on this topic. I fully support merging relevant content to a larger article that can support WP:GNG, and would support a keep if further non-primary sources could be found on Obad-Hai (I sort of doubt they exist, but I've been surprised on these sorts of things before). - Sangrolu (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saint Cuthbert[edit]

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 "{{Main|Saint Cuthbert (Dungeons & Dragons)}}", 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hah, nice! I added a brief description of him in his section. :) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cuthbert[edit]

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)[reply]

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: [4] BOZ (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have the same thing for Heward. Jokem (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Greyhawk_deities&oldid=1213549694"