Talk:Flanaess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger[edit]

Surely this can be merged with the oerth article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollonaire1980 (talk • contribs) 22:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

It could, but shouldn't, as that would be akin to merging the Faerun article with the Toril article. Robbstrd 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But those are articles and this is a footnote. Noneofyourbusiness 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is a stub. Footnotes are something else entirely.--Robbstrd 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Divisions[edit]

Check out pages 4-7 of the Player's Guide. In that reference, the Flanaess is broken into the following regions: Western Nyr Dyv ("Old Ferrond"), Sheldomar Valley, the Baklunish West, the Bitter North, the Empire of Iuz, the Thillonrian Peninsula, Old Aerdy West, Old Aerdy East, and Isolated Realms. This nomenclature is repeated in The Adventure Begins, and was meant to be definitive had the 1998 relaunch gone anywhere. Perhaps we should re-align the geography section of this stub to account for these geographical divisions. What do you think?--Iquander 08:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down with that, but I'm not sure if all of those deserve separate entries, especially "Isolated realms."--Robbstrd 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Isolated Realms is a lame name, but it might make for a helpful catch-all that could include Fireland, Xamaclan, etc. I suppose even Erypt! :) --Iquander 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

No evidence of notability is present in this article, neither in its content or its sources. Please do not remove the notabality cleanup template unless you have added reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reliable secondary sources (the magazines). The article is about the major location of the most important D&D campaign setting ever. The article needs work, but is notable. I shall replace {{notability}} with {{refimprove}}, because I agree that work is needed but am sure that the article is notable. Note that this is not the case for some articles; I have not recently removed the {{notability}} template in this way from many articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify early history[edit]

The World of Greyhawk was /not/ developed from 1972; being only an area around the core castle & city even by mid 1976. ( http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/harami2000/a_e15_egg2.gif for extract from A&E #15 letter cited). Rob Kuntz's Kalibruhn /was/ created as a campaign world in 1973 - bearing more than a passing resemblance to certain aspects of the World of Greyhawk much later on - but that's by-the-by. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article--before your edit--did not try to imply that there was a "World of greyhawk" from the moment Gygax took his two kids into the first level of the dungeon; the article only tried to set out the development of WoG from its earliest days as a basic castle to its "final" form as published in 1980. Yes, it took on a much more "mature" aspect once Rob Kuntz was made co-DM and his material was integrated into Gygax's work. But a number of adventures took place in the "wider" world outside the city & castle before that--most notably the one-way slide from the 13th level of the castle to the far side of the world made by Robilar, Terik and Tenser, and their journey back to Greyhawk. Guinness323 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Rob would be glad to hear that assessment, I know. :)
The previous text ("From 1972 to 1978, Gary Gygax developed the World of Greyhawk") did appear to indicate that there was a created campaign world of that name from 1972 vs. the actuality of Greyhawk Castle (vsn. 1) and some aspects of Greyhawk City (although Rob also developed many/most of those, judging by the mss.) whereas even as of mid-1976 that was still very much at an "early stage" compared with what was eventually published as the "World of Greyhawk". Various articles c. 1975 still appear to emphasise Gary's focus on dungeoneering vs. Rob, Dave Arneson and Jon Snider's much more wide-scale (world/multiverse) campaigning.
Agreed re. that one-way slide from level 13 - and interestingly Rob's "El Raja Key" /also/ has a slide to "China" on the lowest level - leading to adventures outwith the dungeons, but there was still no designed campaign world of any nature at that point; just a 'journey back' which had no hooks (afaik and as far as is known, elsewhere) into anything related to the "World of Greyhawk" later.
No complaints at all if further early references - to 1978, anyhow - are added in the correct context, thanks. :) Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, Rob did mention that at the time that *everyone* in Lake Geneva was designing a dungeon--including him and Castle Maure--Gygax was the only one to create some sort of setting for the castle, plus a city. Rob's words (will look up exact quote) were something like "Castle Maure and all the other dungeons existed in a fog; the adventurers stepped out of fog into the castle, and back out into the fog when they left, while Gary built a setting."
Once Rob's stuff was integrated into Gary's stuff, the two of them developed the world together. The reason Gary ended up dungeoneering is that when he DM'ed, his players mainly wanted to dungeon delve. However, when he played (with Rob as DM), he was more interested in large scale battles and plotics, hence Rob got to do more world building--but it was the same campaign setting overall.
Good points, even if not only "developing the (same) world".
Kalibruhn was linked/reachable from an overall player perspective. So, yes, if - for example - Kalibruhn is deemed part of the same campaign setting (not just world setting), the overarching co-design statement is true, even if Rob would probably insist he also developed much of that independently of the immediate environs of Greyhawk; which EGG was also working on in parallel/later (q.v. also S1 & S3 in early tourney form from 1975/6). The dating for Rob's involvement is very early on and perhaps there's something to be said for further working on describing the inter-relationships /prior/ to the publication of D&D in early 1974. Harami2000 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that the Flanaess did not exist before 1978--when Gygaz decided to create a proper setting for the WoG folio rather than a map of North America with Greyhawk in the place of Chicago--but the "look and feel" of Oerth had been developed by Gary and Rob since 1972. Guinness323 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re. cumulative "look and feel". I'm unsure as to what the precise naming situation might've been outwith the immediate environs of Greyhawk Castle & City circa 1976 (clearly some of the familiar Greyhawk names were around by 1975/76 - again from S1 & S3 in tourney version), and likewise just before 1978, but playing safe with the history and awaiting further /definitive/ (preferably period) references seemed like a smart idea vs. the ease with which the previous 1972-78 quote could be misread for an ongoing development with the whole of the World of Greyhawk being the targeted end result from the start.
Rob's comment re. "everyone" designing a dungeon falls into a slightly late period, I suspect, and doubly-so for /world/ creation. For example, his "El Raja Key" was used/reused/recycled by others in the Lake Geneva group (as Ramshorn Castle, for one) in order to save time creating new dungeons. I'm hard pushed to think of any other campaign worlds /within D&D/ prior to 1974 other than in embryonic form: even Blackmoor seems to be rather nebulous in terms of actual mapping despite the campaign having already gone into space and then some.
aside: Large parts, if not the majority(?), of Greyhawk City were Rob's rather than Gary's, too; hence no surprise at the Mythos hooks below the city. Harami2000 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Redent] I suggest some extra reading on the earliest days of D&D, and the interactions of Gygax and Kuntz. After Dave Arneson demonstrated his new "Blackmoor game" to the Lake Geneva gamers in 1972, everyone rushed home to create their own dungeon, including Gygax, Don Kaye, and Rob Kuntz (who was only 17 at the time). No, there were not a lot of "campaigns" created, this was in the days before D&D and everyone was just trying to make a dungeon like Blackmoor. As such, very few of the dungeons went anywhere after the first few levels were ransacked, and as Kuntz noted, Gygax's creation was the only one that developed a wider world beyond the front door of the dungeon. Kuntz liked the idea and created Kalibruhn after he saw the way Gygax was able to extend the adventure of Castle Greyhawk into a neighbouring city and beyond.

Secondly, understand that there was a world of Greyhawk with regions we would recognize today that existed well before any published material, even before TSR was formed. Kuntz notes that after Robilar, Terik and Tenser returned from the far side of the world, Robilar headed off to the Amedio Jungle, Terik to the Sea Barons and Tenser back to Greyhawk. [Rob Kuntz: "Robilar was one of the first to make it around the Oerth. By entering the lowest level in Greyhawk Castle, he was propelled by a magical slide to what would be modern day "China." Teric and Tenser followed, as they missed his return to the first level of the Castle, which, as a team, this trio held sway over. They caught up with him by scrying and they finished the adventure together. They all split later - Terik visited the southeast area around the Sea Barons (he was looking for Voodoo-type areas), Tenser went home, and Robilar trudged down into the southern jungles, far past the reach of Sea Prince slavers. The warrior even introduced steel for the first time to Amedio jungle tribesmen. These worthies captured him, inheriting a +1 composite bow. Gary hinted that they would reproduce the thing (in non-magical form), and woe to the next series of invaders!" (Kuntz's comments from Tales from the Green Dragon, http://pied-piper-publishing.com/)] This would be back BEFORE Kuntz became co-DM of Greyhawk in 1973--since he was only made co-DM after he visited the 13th level of Gygax's original dungeon and returned--therefore this was before 1973. As you can see from Kuntz's comments, Gygax in 1973 had already created places such as the Amedio Jungle, the Sea Barons, etc., regions that would be published as part of WoG--before TSR existed. Guinness323 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can also recommend Rob Kuntz's interview in Oerth Journal 14 (http://www.oerthjournal.com/oerthjournals/OJ_14.pdf) as an insight into his relationship with Gygax, as well as the relationship between Kalibruhn and WoG. Guinness323 (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra reading is always good. ;) No; I hadn't seen Allan's interview with Rob before (per OJ14; from before when he started publishing and discussing more widely again) and there are a few additional points I hadn't picked up before, albeit not so much additional - unfortunately - in the context of this page.
Similarly, there's no indication in Rob's travels back from "China" as to when, or even if, that ceased to be hex crawling (as was originally "taught" to EGG by Dave Arneson) as opposed to entering a new phase of deliberate world building; especially for that to be fully independent of any RL world or Outdoor Survival basis. Clearly the "world surrounding Greyhawk" as mapped by EGG up until mid-1976 (per the A&E 15 ref) /should/ not be "smaller" than any (claimed) WoG precursor circa 1973.
At best - and it's probably still notable - a few names were being introduced during adventuring by 1973 which would become tied into what became later recognisable as a "World of Greyhawk". If there was a genuine, /very/ early WoG map in EGG's archive I'm surprised that that has never been mentioned or shown to exist, afaik, whereas Rob's Kalibruhn maps from pre-TSR days have been released and are well known in gaming research circles (even if "cite ms" is not an option in Wikipedia!). aside: Same applies to Blackmoor, of course.
The statement that "there was a world of Greyhawk with regions we would recognize today that existed well before any published material, even before TSR was formed" cannot, however, be properly substantiated or derived for the earlier date from Rob's recounting, above. More names appear by 1975 (unpublished tourney version of S1 plus other writings and stories elsewhere) but digging out original sources with clear hooks into a created WoG appears to be problematic prior to 1974. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Gygax's various Q&A forums for insights into early Greyhawk development. For instance:
Gygax: "When I initiated the Greyhawk campaign, I envisaged a world of parallel earth sort. Thus the geography then assumed was pretty close to that of earth."[1]
Gygax: "The planet was much like our earth. The city of Greyhawk was located on the [Great] lakes in about the position that Chicago is, and Dyvers was north at the Milwaukee location. The general culture was pseudo medieval European. Some of the kingdoms shown on the WoG map were around the adventure-central area, the City of Greyhawk." [2]
So in essence Gygax created a place called Castle Greyhawk like everyone else, but then a month later created a city called Greyhawk. Then every time his adventurers headed out in a different direction, he filled in the blank spaces with new regions as needed. In that sense, no he did not create an entire world at once, just new geography as needed. Then in 1978, for the folio, he created a new world as a whole vision, then rearranged his old lands into a new configuration on a new continent and called it the Flanaess. But many of the various lands and their cultures were brought forward from his old campaign--the Sea Barons as a pirate culture, the Amedio Jungle "natives", the gynocracy of Hardby, the rivalry with lawless Dyvers, etc. Many of these regions had been created by Gygax in the first two years of his campaign (1972-74) as players required new lands to visit and new political plots to unravel. (Remember that until RJK became co-DM in 1973, EGG was DMing seven days a week, often two sessions a day, involving anything from solo adventures to groups of 20 players.) His forums are an exceelent source of info about this time of the campaign--unfortunately no one has taken the time to index them yet, which is fair, since the three main forums cover hundreds of pages and thousands of questions. Guinness323 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re. sourcing from EN World, Dragonsfoot, etc.: so long as it's remembered that EGG's memory was inevitably not always 100% accurate, either in detail or timeframe. Rob is usually a bit better, although sometimes the details still do not match (e.g. Tomb of Horrors episode as currently recounted vs. EGG's 1976 notes in A&E).
"Many of these regions had been created by Gygax in the first two years of his campaign (1972-74) as players required new lands to visit and new political plots to unravel" could be deemed to be bordering on weasel wording as it's taking general statements from EGG and shoe-horning those into a specific early timeframe where they could be read as meaning more than actually existed on paper in terms of world development. (Again; no actual map seen).
If there were many other "new lands to visit and new political plots to unravel" /prior/ to 1974, where are the many recollections of those from Rob Kuntz, Ernie Gygax, etc., from that specific pre-publication period other than of the "journey back from China" and related side-trips which must, by definition, have been at least in part hex crawling given that the entire "world" was no more than a 500 mile radius from Greyhawk and only 50 miles in detail even as of mid-1976. As noted, the vast majority of recollections of EGG's DMing from the earliest period are of the dungeoneering variety with a number of others in the immediate vicinity of Greyhawk Castle & City and very little beyond that.
"First mentions"/"first contexts" that names are seen in is a good idea, though, whether those be "Gygax states that..." or actual citable appearences in print. Harami2000 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In researching all the early pioneers' comments in various forums, none of them has perfect memory, and I have been careful (in other articles) to point out any contradictions. For instance, Gygax variously recalls during the first-ever session with Ernie and Elise that the first monsters killed were either a nest of scorpions or some giant centipedes. Kuntz recalls at his first session (the second session ever) that they killed centipedes, so likely the first session with the two kids was scorpions,and the second session with the kids, Kuntz, brother Terry and Don Kaye was centipedes. However, Kuntz's memory also is questionable--he once recalled in his Pied Piper forum that he became DM in 1974, until another player reminded him that he (the player) had moved to Lake Geneva in 1973 and Kuntz was already DM by that point (which Kuntz then agreed was correct.) That is important, because all of the adventuring of Robilar done prior to his becoming DM then is an important sign-post marking the division between Gygax-only world development and Gygax/Kuntz co-development. Thus any references to players in this time frame visiting other regions now part of WoG i.e. pre-Kuntz, indicates significant world-building.
Also at issue is your deletion of the phrase "then as a testing ground for the game of Dungeons & Dragons that he developed with Dave Arneson." This is clearly at odds with the facts. Gygax started the dungeons of Greyhawk specifically in order to develop rules that he and Arneson could publish. In addition, various character classes (thieves, assassins, rangers) were developed and fine-tuned during the first few years of play (1972-75), and then published in the various D&D supplement booklets. Gygax was first and foremost a game developer (Chainmail, Don't Give Up the Ship!), and everything he created for this new "Fantasy Game" was with an eye to publishing a game, not amusing his children.
I haven't deleted the phrase: in fact I've tied that in precisely as you write in the above paragraph.
The wording as given previously in the Wiki article was "From 1972 to 1978, Gary Gygax developed the World of Greyhawk first as a personal home campaign for the amusement of his children and friends, and then as a testing ground for the game of Dungeons & Dragons that he developed with Dave Arneson.". This has no chronological integrity since the co-development terminates during 1973 prior to the publication of Dungeons & Dragons (and EGG insisted that Dave played little part in that, anyhow). What then was actually "developed" prior to that date? The implication is that there was already a clearly /planned/ development for a "World of Greyhawk" but, if so, what is the hard evidence for that /before/ 1974 beyond a few familiar names mostly from one specific episode and adventuring which may or may not be hex crawling?
Yes, Greyhawk Castle was key to the development of D&D. That is known and detailed in considerable depth which is why I've left that in conjunction with the "as a testing ground for the game of Dungeons & Dragons that he developed with Dave Arneson during 1972/73" phrase; tied in specifically to known and proven facts.
If appealing to the supplements, where is the "World of Greyhawk" content in the Greyhawk supplement? Likewise, in his early 1975 article/comments in Europa http://www.whiningkentpigs.com/DW/oldzines/europa6-8.pdf (pages 18, onwards) there is considerable in-depth information about Greyhawk Castle but only a very vague discussion on world building and similarly elsewhere. A few more names appear in 1975 (e.g. tourney Tomb of Horrors) but even by mid-1976 (Gygax, A&E 15) there is no /World/ of Greyhawk, as opposed to a limited area mapped around Greyhawk Castle and City. Harami2000 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, in light of very early references to other regions of the Flanaess--which you are trying to put down to Gygax's faulty memory--your broad assertion that early Greyhawk had nothing to do with the eventual published WoG is clearly at odds with Occam's Razor. Your second assertion that early Greyhawk was not a testing ground for D&D would seem to be at odds with TSR publishing history.
No, I'm not trying to put down to Gygax's faulty memory, just a general (and obvious) word of caution on the side. He himself made no claims at the time that I'm aware of that he /deliberately/ went around designing the /World/ of Greyhawk in order to create/test the D&D ruleset. Random tables in D&D as published in 1974, repeated references to Outdoor Survival and vague "how to go about expanding the campaign" comments that are almost entirely generic/derivative/bolted-on provide no evidence to back up the WoG->D&D assertion. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I believe this discussion has reached the point where it might be tiresome to other editors, and if we want to continue it, we should probably move it off the discussion page and onto one of our talk pages until we can come to an agreement.Guinness323 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Gary Gygax: Q & A (Part I, Page 8)". EN World. 2002-09-06. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
  2. ^ "Gary Gygax: Q & A (Part III, Page 4)". EN World. 2003-04-14. Retrieved 2009-03-15.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flanaess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geography section[edit]

The "Geography" section was full of unnecessary details about sub-divisions that aren't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, so I've deleted it. If you have concerns, please discuss them here. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that deleting the whole Geography section, not only does leave quite a few links to nowhere, but also uses the hammer instead of the scalpel, so to speak. I was trying to find more information on this topic because I was completely unfamiliar with it until recently. If anything, this section was lacking in information for something as notable as the original world for the Godfather of role-playing games.
Quite a bit of the information here can be difficult to find elsewhere, so to be honest I'm a bit concerned about you and TTN's attempt to remove all of this material along with pages on individual Greyhawk nations.
P.S. I undeleted the Geography section before I saw this. Borderlandor (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of information that doesn't belong on this site in the first place, unless notability can be established. If the D&D project members showed any care in these articles, this wouldn't be necessary. This has been an on-going thing for ten years, and instead of doing anything, they just log out and bring back pages anonymously. And before you say this does no harm, having a bunch of plot-only articles hampers the development of articles with potential. There are probably twenty to forty D&D character articles that really have potential. When there are literal hundreds of useless articles, nobody is going to find those good ones. Once the useless articles have been removed, development on the remaining articles is much easier because people will be directed to just those characters when looking at a category or template. Take a look at Pokemon, which reduced 700 articles to twenty lists. Then they reduced those twenty lists to under ten lists and have then split out 20+ viable articles. TTN (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the quality is sub-par. But I don't know anything about what these editors for the D&D project are or are not doing. I don't know anything about these supposed articles that could use more development over this one, or about a bunch of worthless articles that D&D fanboys are e-crusading for. To be blunt, those are all just red herrings. I really don't know a whole lot about D&D, but surely the original world of D&D is notable enough to have a page devoted to some details on the world itself. I mean, just how does it fail to be notable?
If what you say about the Pokemon articles is true, shouldn't you be trying to put it all this Greyhawk world stuff in one place and not try to delete every piece of it that you can find? It sounds like you're making an argument for actually working on improving this material (which it sorely needs), but it's awkwardly being used to support blanket deletion. If this is simply a matter of increasing efficiency, then you are going about it quite inefficiently. I just don't see the reasoning behind this at all.
TTN, I think that -- at the very least -- we should at least keep the geography section intact for now, just for the sake of those articles that you nominated for deletion. Several people (myself included) are making a valid suggestion of merging those pages here, and so there should be an existing Geography section to merge it with if we have a consensus of doing that. I think that merging those articles to an existing geography section on a single page here is a valid compromise that satisfies both of our agendas. Borderlandor (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about the section. I'm just responding to the idea that I'm doing something problematic. I'll most likely be nominating this for deletion eventually unless sources turn up. This information, without real world sourcing to back it up, doesn't belong her in the first place. The fictional world probably deserves three paragraphs in the main article at best, and the only way that will change is if sources are found for it. This is all overly specific detail that belongs on Wikia, not here. The purpose of plot is to provide context for the real world information. This much context is not necessary. The most I would imagine is an article titled "Geography of Dungeons & Dragons" that encompasses the whole of the series and its spinoffs from a real world perspective. To compare it to Pokemon, most of the creatures have been reduced to a name and a single sentence. With comparative importance, this stuff doesn't need to be mentioned at all. TTN (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that Power~enwiki's delete-first policy isn't a good idea, considering how all those articles you nominated for deletion could easily end up being merged to what would be a non-existing section of a page that was already mostly made of merged articles.
But if you really think anyone can meaningfully summarize the half a dozen or so major fantasy worlds of D&D, which have been fleshed out by all kinds of books and modules in the last forty years, in "three paragraphs", you probably don't know what you're talking about, or simply don't care.
See you whenever you try to delete this page too. Borderlandor (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody needs to summarize all of it, only what is important in understanding the context of the series. There has to be a cutoff point somewhere, else you'd end up with the quite literal millions of articles on random characters and locations that various series have on Wikia. You're obviously not arguing for that kind of insane inclusionism, but there is nothing critical to the basic understanding of the series on this page. The point is not to provide coverage on the fictional details of Greyhawk, but to use fictional details to provide context to the topic of Greyhawk from an encyclopedic standpoint. That much can be done from the main article with little issue. If it turns out this particular topic is notable, then more information can be used to provide context to that notability. Even if that does happen, the current state of the article would not last, but it would instead be fine tuned to favor a real world look at the topic. TTN (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you read the actual books if you want to know the details of a D&D campaign setting. It doesn't need to be covered in the depth that physical locations are covered. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate keeping the geography section, in large part because it has been used as a merge target numerous times. That said, I have no objection if someone wanted to perform an aggressive trim of the section, cutting each topic that is currently a heading down to one or two sentences or more as needed. I find myself agreeing with the comments by User:Borderlandor above. BOZ (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flanaess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flanaess&oldid=1213547437"