Talk:Githyanki

It doesn't HAVE to be a speedy delete. If you look on google you'll find that Githyanki is, in fact, an actual race. Maybe I'm being soft here, but in adding a VFD I was hoping that someone would step up and add in some real content before it was deleted. Reasoning: If someone adds the content, it would be a good, encylopedic page; if no one adds the content then it probably is not notable enough to stay anyway. Chaz 22:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Bad external link

I removed the following external link because I got a "Server not found ... can't find the server at www.dungeonlord.co.uk." error. I'm recording it here in case the site comes back up later. 65.147.3.112 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dave Edens (2005). "Charlie Stross Interview". DungeonLord. Retrieved February 15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

dark sun

Are these the same as in Dark Sun?--142.108.107.36 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. --Ye Editor 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional references & nuking tags from orbit

If anyone can track down the original White Dwarf reference for the gith races, that would be awesome. Given the place of the githyanki in D&D over the years (and some of the in-text mentions of creative origin), the notability tag is almost laughable, but rather than inciting deletionists to edit war over tags, let's find the reference and nuke the tag from orbit.Shemeska (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. It's a lazy Saturday and I'm not in the lab, so I hunted down the references myself. If there's still a dispute over that tag (for whatever ungodly reason) take it up here before trying to raise it from the dead like a moldy cat in Pet Cemetary.Shemeska (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work! BOZ (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Reliable sources & FAQs

Shemeska claims that a FAQ qualifies as a reliable secondary source such that it provides evidence of notability. Was placing the Notability cleanup template placed on this article a mistake? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not put words in my mouth Gavin. I never made a claim that a FAQ was a reliable secondary source. I added three references: two 3rd party magazine articles, and a link to an interview with the original creator of the Githyanki. Collectively they're enough to nuke the notability tag you slapped on the article. I did not -ever- state that a FAQ was a reliable secondary source as you are claiming, and none of the references I added are FAQs.Shemeska (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide footnotes. Without them, we have no idea what you have done.--Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you should have said so initially Gavin, rather than falsely stating that I believed that FAQs are reliable secondary sources. I don't have a clue where you pulled that from, because none of the 3 sources I added are FAQs. I would appreciate if you retracted your claim.Shemeska (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that of course, needing to add footnotes is an entirely different issue from the notability tag, which I removed with the addition of 3rd party sources. Needing footnotes has nothing to do with the notability tag or its removal.Shemeska (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what the "nofootnotes" tag is for, which is already on the article. This has nothing to do with notability. BOZ (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• RfC is where you go when you have already tried to resolve the issue on the talk page and failed, it is not the way to begin a conversation. Anyway, I don't see any third party sources here, only promotional publications from the RPG industry, so there is an inherent notability issue here IMHO Beeblbrox (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue here. The editors working on this know it needs more 3rd party sources and we are working on them. This is another case of editors of the RPG articles being harassed by the editor asking for the RfC. Web Warlock (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I randomly clicked on this after looking at the RfC page for the first time ever, and now I'm party to harassment because I said something you didn't like and you feel gamers are being persecuted because articles on gaming topics are subject to the general notability guideline just like everything else? Asserting that "there is no issue" does not make it so. If you can cite some references in reliable third party publications, then we're done, there's no notability issue. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No there is no issue neded for an RfC becuase it is a work in progress. The editors working on it know it needs cleaned up and more sources added, there was never a disagreement on that. Your points are valid and everyone knows and understands that. Gavin brought the RfC because he does not know what these articles are about and would rather complain about them than fix them. I am sorry he dragged you, an innocent 3rd party only looking to help, into his pissing-match. Web Warlock (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Beeblbrox has made a valid observation and a constructive suggestion; this article has insufficent real-word content to demonstrate the notability of this fictional character, and the way to improve it is by such content by citing reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then why don't you start fixing the article instead of bitching about it. Web Warlock (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Beeblbrox made more than one valid observation and constructive suggestion: "RfC is where you go when you have already tried to resolve the issue on the talk page and failed, it is not the way to begin a conversation." BOZ (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially when the RfC was based on a completely false statement. Gavin, please retract what you claimed about me above or I'm going to have to look for Administrative mediation of some sort. This is getting completely out of hand.Shemeska (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I see no evidence that "Shemeska claims that a FAQ qualifies as a reliable secondary source such that it provides evidence of notability" - the FAQ link was in place already when Shemeska placed the other 3rd party references (White Dwarf magazine and Charles Stross interview) on the article page, so Gavin's claim is clearly falsified, which is his basis for calling an RfC in this case. The FAQ link was placed February 2007 by Peregrine Fisher as a reference to note that the Githyanki is considered product identity by Wizards of the Coast. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)