Template talk:Orc pantheon

Deletion
Can this page please be deleted as Orc pantheon seems to fit the template standard better. — User:Doonval ti bekk'har


 * Done! Thanks for cleaning these up. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:18, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Which edition?
Now wait just a minute! Why are we choosing a particular edition's ordering of this pantheon? (And looks like this is happening to other pantheons too.) This looks like third edition's view of the Orcish Pantheon and I don't think we should be promoting any edition over any other. Either that, or we should be promoting the latest edition. Using this pantheon as an example, here's what we've got:

1st Edition

 * Gruumsh (greater)
 * Bahgtru (lesser)
 * Ilneval (lesser)
 * Luthic (lesser)
 * Shargaas (lesser)
 * Yurtrus (lesser)

2nd Edition

 * Gruumsh (greater)
 * Bahgtru (intermediate)
 * Ilneval (intermediate)
 * Shargaas (intermediate)
 * Yurtrus (intermediate)
 * Luthic (lesser)

3rd Edition

 * Gruumsh (greater)
 * Bahgtru (lesser)
 * Ilneval (lesser)
 * Luthic (lesser)
 * Shargaas (lesser)
 * Yurtrus (lesser)

4th Edition

 * Gruumsh (greater)
 * Luthic (it just says "goddess")
 * Bahgtru (exarch)
 * Obould (exarch)
 * Shargaas (exarch)
 * Vaprak (exarch)

Note that Obould and Vaprak are late-comers and I'm not sure what happened to Ilneval and Yurtrus. Let's resolve this please, before any more templates are deleted or rewritten. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:26, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

hey Moviesign. to clarify we had a redundant template that needed to be removed. I reformatted the template to match what it said on the deities pages ie. the pages stated them as lessers so thats what i put. If the iformation is inaccurate feel free to correct.

my rationale behind doing so was to ease the identification of viable deities and their power for players wanting to roll divine casters i.e. the drow pantheon as of the most current forgotten realms year has only Lolth as a living deity. Doonval ti bekk&#39;har (talk) 04:15, September 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Deleting a redundant template is fine, but your reformatting is sort of putting the cart before the horse. Almost all the Category:Deities need to be brought up to date (see the infobox at Sharess for an example) because every edition rearranges the gods almost like shuffling cards. I'd like to get a consensus on how we want to present the pantheons in the templates. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 04:33, September 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't consider that and didn't notice that Doonval had reformatted it. No, I prefer it the way it was before, without bothering with divine ranks and ordering. To be edition-neutral, and to make these templates always applicable, it's best to leave out any temporary changes in power and status. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:48, September 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * fair enough. I will just update the Deity pages instead. question though for the deity infobox is it viable/possible for the edition order to be descending and is it ok if i change them to the multi-edition infobox? Doonval ti bekk&#39;har (talk) 16:38, September 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * By all means, put the multi-edition Deity template to work. There is a lengthy discussion about its creation in Forum:Organizing the Deity template which you might find helpful or interesting. Let me know if you find any errors in the documentation. As for the order of the editions, we might have to vote on that. Bring it up in that Forum article if you feel strongly about it. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 17:14, September 15, 2013 (UTC)