Talk:Pharagos: The Battleground

Delete this article

I think this article (and all references to it in the githyanki/zerai articles) should be deleted. The Forerunners and Pharagos are not from D&D canon -- they are from a setting created by one of WotC's game designers for their setting search, which was turned down in favor of Eberron and showed up on said designer's website.--Filby 03:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend deletion for this article even if this wasn't official D&D material. Articles based on RPG magazines are just as valid as articles based on RPG game books. All that would be required would be reclassification of this and removal or adjustment of references to it from D&D articles.

However, Dungeon, Dragon and Polyhedron, are all magazines that were licenced by TSR and/or WotC and are therefore viewed as official canon by many people. However I think that articles linking to this one need to state where this material comes from.

As you don't seem to have let WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons know you are unhappy about this article, I've let them know on your behalf. Hopefully they will sort it out. Big Mac 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Penumbra link problem

The Penumbra link in this article leads to an article that isn't anything to do with the artificial world mentioned in this article. I've been to the disambigution page and there is a role playing world called Penumbra_(World_of_Darkness), but this is an article about the World of Darkness multiverse published by White Wolf and probably not connected to this article. Big Mac 12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging the mini campaign information of Pharagos:_The_Battleground to here to make one article with more substantial information IF the articles from the 3 magazines are noteworthy enough; rather than 5 articles. It is also possilbe that if not much other information can be found for Githyanki, Githzerai, or Zerthimon than what is presented that they also be merged here and have them all also redirect to here to make one decent article rather than 5 appearingly stubs. But we can decide all that individually unless someone else wishes to make it a mass merger. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)