Talk:Nerull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of The World of Greyhawk Wikiproject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Tharoth

The source for Tharoth is here: [1]--Robbstrd 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power

In the Deities and Demigods suppliment, Nerull has a higher divine ranking (17) than any of the other default evil deities. I haven't compared statistics, but according to the book, divine rankings are indication of how powerful deities are. I haven't seen it directly said in any of the sources I'm familiar with, but this would make Nerull the most powerful evil deity in the default D&D pantheon.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


"Nerull is said to slay Obad-Hai every winter." A claim like this needs to be expanded upon. TheOnlyMerlin (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article could use more citations

It is written in an in-universe style and the lack of citations make it difficult to draw the distinction between original research and what is actually documented by the game makers. Additionally, it has notability problems due to it's lack of real world impact/significance. Ursasapien (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the cleaup templates without effecting cleanup. There is no evidence that the content of this article is sourced at all: there are no footnotes to enable the reader to identify the article's content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit war. You were bold, reverted, and should have come here to discuss as your next step. There is no evidence that this article contains original research. The most appropriate tag would be one asking for inline citations. I will replace the tag you put with a tag requesting inline citations. There are plenty of references and you can certainly obtain some of them and make the inline citations as necessary. Ursasapien (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You accuse me of edit waring, but it is you who reverted my edits in the first place. This is a clear example of "The Pot Calling The Kettle Black".--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the process went exactly as I described. You=bold, I=revert, you=no discuss. Please be careful. I respect you as a colleague. I believe you can help to make this a great encyclopedia. However, edit-warring can lead to being blocked which does not help the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start by looking at the sources that are available online and then using them to provide in-line citations use ref templates. I would do it myself, but I can not access these sites from my computer. Ursasapien (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do that before you remove the cleanup templates. In the first instance I note you have removed the nofootnotes template. This seems strange, as I see no footnotes in this article. Can you explain why you have done this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no "nofootnotes" switch in the "articleissues" template. I replaced it with "citations missing" which is the same thing. Incidentally, you should have started this thread on the talk page before you installed the cleanup templates. Ursasapien (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Citations missing implies that there are already some citations in the article, and that the "missing citations" represent gaps. However, there are no citaions in this article. Please restore the nofootnotes template.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
First, stop with the bullets already. Just indent your comment. Second, have you read the tag? It clearly states:
  • It is missing citations or footnotes. Please help improve it by adding inline citations. Tagged since April 2008.
Stop be so reactionary. As you had it, the tag said nothing about citations because, there is no "nofootnotes" switch in the "articleissues" template. Ursasapien (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"It is missing citations or footnotes" is not true: it does not have any at all. Please restore the nofootnotes cleanup template. This is the last time I will ask. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
First, stop with the ultimatums! Second, your fervor has made you dense. "Missing citations or footnotes" means there are no citations or footnotes. On top of that, I have already explained that THERE IS NO "NOFOOTNOTES" SWITCH IN THE "ARTICLEISSUES" TEMPLATE! I do not know how I can be more clear. However, if you feel froggy, jump! Edit-war and see where that gets you. Ursasapien (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)