Talk:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer

Unsubstantiated claim
I have deleted the following claim


 * "This book is notably the final campaign setting book for the World of Greyhawk setting which was replaced by Eberron in the early 2000s".

There is no reference to the Greyhawk Gazetteer in this article, and the claim is spurious. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Web Warlock (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the result of Keep I still think merging is the best option here. Web Warlock (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and support the merge that you propose above. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS
I have removed several references from the Critical Response section as being self-published sources; i.e. forums where anyone can join and type away. --Jack Merridew 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really claiming that "Of the two Greyhawk Gazeteers (The Living Greyhawk Gazeteer and the D&D Gazeteer) published for the 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons game, the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer was better recieved by players.[3] Most reviews were generally positive[4][5][6] with common misgivings are lack of full color layout and a paper-back cover." is likely to be challenged? Normally I'd leave this for discussion and restore later, but given the AfD on-going, I will be bold and put it back pending discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * they are inappropriate sources. removed again. --Jack Merridew 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And now I have put them back. RPGNet has been widely and repeatedly established within this communitee as being an appropriate third-party source. If you have issues with this then you need to take it to the communitee of editors here and discuss why you feel it isn't.  Until then the majority says it stays. Web Warlock (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The community? The committee of editors? The citations in question say "Living Greyhawk Gazeteer was better received by players. Most reviews were generally positive. This cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source by a long shot. There is no majority; its is just your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed again per my prior comments and Gavin. Your argument about a local "communitee" [sic] is ludicrous and without basis in policy. WP:Consensus is global, not local. If your Committee for the Present Emergency wants its own view to rule, you had better succeed to Wikia. --Jack Merridew 09:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realize that RPGnet reviews are reviewed by the staff right? I think they stay and would revert, but don't want to lose fixes made between your edit and now.  Anyone with a real toolset?  Hobit (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem as if the only 'tools' you're familiar with is 'revert' and 'undo'. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If they do it is not apparent in this case. The "reviews" are just trivial remarks; there is no commentary, analysis or criticism. I can't believe for even one moment these reviews have been vetted by RPG.net staff, as there is just no evidence of any peer review at all. In this instance, I think you are twisting the facts around to push your view that the content of this article demonstrates notability, when it obvious it does not. I say again, restore the notability template. At least then we can discuss merger with a more notable topic, rather than pretending this is a stand alone topic. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain you actually read them. I'm having a hard time seeing how they don't have commentary or criticism. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
2601:240:E200:3B60:9DAA:978C:F44:8FC4 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Backstab #28