Living Greyhawk Gazetteer Pdf Download

  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
  6. Accessibility: not checked
  • Expand :List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters and sub-articles.
  • Merge : Various articles
  • Stubs :Dungeoneer’s Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More…
  • Update :Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
  • Other :Collaboration:Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

Unsubstantiated claim[edit]

I have deleted the following claim

Merge Proposals[edit]

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.

Living Greyhawk

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)

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer Pdf Download 2017

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)


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)

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer Pdf Download

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 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)



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store