Talk:World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting

Removal of Prod template
I have reviewed this article and found it to be:
 * Failing notability requirements of WP:Notability as it contains no assertion of notability, analysis or context;
 * Has no independent sources which can be verified;
 * The article itself is primarily focused on the in universe game settings which make up the content of this book.

I propose nominating this article for deletion to obtain peer review.

In my view the removal of the templates without discussion was an attempt to start an edit war, into which I will not be drawn.

If you diagree with my viewpoint, I am open to discussion. --Gavin Collins 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you marked it with an "in-universe" template shows that you should probably re-read the article. The article chiefly lists publishing information & physically describes the product--please list the "plot" information you seem to think this article contains. As for an independent source, try here. As for notability, this was the first campaign world setting published by TSR, a campaign world that developed alongside D&D itself (see the main Greyhawk entry for historical details). This is the work upon which all supplemental publications for the setting build.--Robbstrd 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the article which is focused on the in universe game settings. That's just plain inaccurate. Removing the inuniverse template without discussing it just makes sense. The template shouldn't have been added in the first place. Making appropriate edits and reverting inappropriate edits are not attempts to start a edit wars; they're just good sensible edits. Rray 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that RPG articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. The key point to remember: Wikipedia is not a game guide. I note that sitting under this category is an array of non-notable articles: Would it not be better to merge all of these to make a single, well written and referenced article? --Gavin Collins 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Greyhawk creatures
 * Category:Greyhawk deities
 * Category:Greyhawk magical items
 * Category:Greyhawk organizations
 * Category:Greyhawk locations
 * Category:Greyhawk stubs
 * Category:Greyhawk symbols


 * While what you say above might be true of some of the articles in those categories, the tagging of this article as being written in an "in-universe" style was incorrect and arbitrary. I'm glad to see that you're now making constructive suggestions on talk pages instead of arbitrarily adding inappropriate and incorrect templates to articles. (I hope this is a trend.) Rray 03:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right on that point, but I think that the Primarysources, Nofootnotes, and Notability templates should be placed on this artlicle.--Gavin Collins 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sharing your thoughts on the matter, but please take the time to familiarize yourself with an article and use accurate and correct templates on them before labeling them. You're creating needless work by being careless and inaccurate. Rray 00:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you don't deny that the aricle is not notable and has no independent sources, then you will not mind if I nominate this article for AfD. --Gavin Collins 08:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he would, since he hasn't actually said anything about that yet, all his attention has been spent on one of those issues. I don't condemn the actions of the military in Burma in every post I make, but that doesn't mean that I condone them. (A bad analogy, but all I could come up with on short notice.) You could leave a message on his talk page and ask for his input. --Kizor 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gavin, the setting is obviously notable to anyone who knows anything about the subject matter, so an AfD would be inappropriate. The article lacks independent sources though, so re-adding that template might be appropriate. (Actually finding and adding independent sources yourself would be the most appropriate and helpful use of your time, though.) My point was that instead of randomly adding templates and nominating things for deletion, you should figure out what's really going on and make intelligent, educated decisions with your edits. Your persistence in adding inaccurate templates and nominating articles for deletion isn't helpful. Rray 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is, if I don't know its notable after reading the article, then its not notable; you should not have to have a PhD in RPG to qualify as an editor in Wikipedia. Time to go to Afd. --Gavin Collins 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A subject is notable if it qualifies under the notability guidelines. Your understanding of whether it's notable or not after reading the article has nothing to do with it. Please stop with the nonsensical AfD's. Rray 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this article notable under WP:NOTABILITY? Please explain your last assertion. --Gavin Collins 04:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article includes 2 references establishing notability, one of which is an award the game has won, and the other is coverage in an industry magazine. Neither the magazine or the source of the award are affiliated with the publisher. Please explain how that fails the notability guideline? Rray 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The award was not made to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting: this reference is misleading. The first reference is trivial, as it provides no analyis, context or critism, just a comment that about a related publication Fantasy World Setting. There are no references for this book. --Gavin Collins 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus disagrees with you, just as they did before you nominated the article for deletion. Please respect the consensus on the talk page next time, before nominating an article for deletion when it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being deleted. You're just disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point by making these kinds of bad faith nominations. Rray 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With the death of Mr. Gygax we are seeing scores of articles in mainstream publications like Newsweek, The New York Times, and Wired printing significant amounts of information concerning the impact of D&D on the culture including references to Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and earlier settings. I have taken some time to look through the conversations concerning Gavin Collins and I agree that in any other online medium he would be classified as a troll.  (In this sense, I mean an individual creating conflict for personal gratification and negative attention.)  Based on the media coverage within the last week, Wikipedia editors looking for any justification of notability can reasonably cite larger journals and remove these spurious "notability" claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.182.3.253 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 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)


 * This article should definitely merge with Greyhawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.78 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dragon #46
I've found the three pages worth of reviews for the original folio edition, and want to expand on what the article currently includes. Feel free to trim it back a bit, but it seems the best way to expand D&D product articles is to include more independent commentary such as reviews. For reference, the column included two product reviews, and an "official" response by Lawrence Schick. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm finished with that. If you have access to the reviews, you may want to re-read them and see if you can add more citaitons to the section above where I put the reception; never hurt to have more receptions outside of the primary source! Like I say, feel free to trim, but when you have as much review material as was found in Dragon #46, I don't think it's inappropriate to write as much as I did there. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)