This article contains spoilers for the following products: Wrath of the Righteous and Return of the Runelords Adventure Paths
From PathfinderWiki

Page protection

Runeplague, which has been out for less than a month and is part of an AP that isn't finished, makes a significant change to Nocticula's alignment and status. Our traditional method of handling world-changing campaign setting events in AP volumes has been to assume that events during an AP are influenced by PC actions and to wait for other canon works that confirm and advance the timeline with a specific outcome.

Fleanetha is playing this AP, and managing these changes would spoil the AP for him. I don't own the book yet. Without knowing the context for these world-changing, AP-spoiling changes, I can't determine if the changes are accurate or appropriate. Implementing those proposed changes on Nocticula would constitute not only a significant spoiler for Return of the Runelords without much lead time for players, but also constitute a retroactive spoiler, advancement, or invalidation of events related to and depictions of Nocticula in Wrath of the Righteous, Book of the Damned, and other Tier 1 works.

Because it's past midnight for Fleanetha, who shouldn't have to review the content while playing the AP, and I'm still at work and don't have the book to review the changes, I don't think we have sufficient administrative coverage for what is a significant change to the campaign setting. I've protected this page for the next week while we get some sort of collaborative effort and additional administrative review on this change. -Oznogon (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for and received confirmation and clarification about this change from Yoda8myhead via email. Because the nature of this change has far-reaching consequences for several sources and articles beyond this one, including later issues in the Return of the Runelords AP, we need to plan a comprehensive and coordinated edit across multiple articles to incorporate the changes without contradictions within this article and across other articles, and we'll need at least one other content admin beyond me and Fleanetha to review that plan at least until I get and read through Runeplague.
Because {{WIP}} isn't necessarily a good fit in this context, I've created a new notice template, Template:Recent canon updates, so we can flag and corral subjects. I imagine it'll get more use when this AP, Tyrant's Grasp, and the release of 2E presumably push the timeline forward relatively rapidly over the next year.
I've also created Project:Nocticula Revision Initiative to plan and coordinate this specific work. -Oznogon (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cult of the Redeemer Queen

The citation for information added by HTD in this edit includes a reference containing only the unlinked text "Cult of the Redeemer Queen" and no citations of a canon source.

Please cite a canon source and revise the added infobox content to clarify which content refers to Nocticula's canonical and heretical worshipers, respectively, or please add and cite sources in a separate {{Deity}} infobox or article for the heretical cult to more clearly differentiate the two. -Oznogon (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The source for that information is the Return of the Runelords Player's Guide, whose citation was added in the same edit. I was only copying how the existing article Lissala displayed a deity whose alignment and domains changed. - HTD (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I've changed Lissala to clarify it as well, and requested confirmation and sources from Fleanetha, who added that information to the article. -Oznogon (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the same setting information — although not the technical info — is also present in A Song of Silver in the NPC section, specifically in Ayavah's article. It wouldn't help with the infoboxes, but it might serve as a worthwhile second source insofar as the main article goes. ~Theriocephalus, 23:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to simplify the two variants here in a similar fashion as is currently used for Lissala (so any resolution there can be more readily enacted here too). Theriocephalus's additions help (though I have also added a spoiler). I think having the information about the cult here is useful, but note we now have a red link to a future full page about the Cult of the Redeemer Queen, which I think makes sense and I cemented that with a {{Main}}. That page would need the data about Nocticula's alternative aspect. I don't possess the source, so wonder if clerics of the cult can only be CN - usually, clerics can be all the surrounding alignments too. --Fleanetha (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Added content to Cult of the Redeemer Queen from the Return of the Runelords Player's Guide, which confirms that "these worshippers are universally chaotic neutral in alignment". It isn't any more specific than that about whether the standard cleric alignment spread is possible, for what it's worth. -Oznogon (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Protected this page because HTD decided to implement a fundamental change and potential large spoiler for unreleased high-tier works based on lower-tier sources, apparently disregarding this discussion. -Oznogon (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Tidy, 9 Dec 2019

I have tidied the existing material this evening, as what was there was a mess and it may well still be. I think it is now consistent on the page. The deity infobox was overloaded, so I have split that now as probably the best way forward (plus order the associated categories). I have widened the spoiler to match that on this page and the PathfinderWiki:Nocticula Revision Initiative, as it feels (not having read either) that this is a major spoiler for many still enjoying the 1E APs. Nothing I've done merits the removal of any of the banners though. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving/Deleting Pages [CONCLUDED]

This page needs to be erased and the information copied over to a page with the proper spelling of the demon lord's name "Nocticula". I don't believe I have the power to erase pages as a normal user, do I? --brandingopportunity 19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the page to the correct location. As a normal user you shouldn't be able to delete, but you can move, which will make the existing page into a redirect. This way, all misspelled links that already exist will send the user to the correct page. -- Yoda8myhead 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Mark, can you explain that a bit more? Thanks. --brandingopportunity 11:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. When a page exists and has the wrong title, either because it's misspelled or doesn't follow naming conventions, it can be moved to a new location very easily. At the top of the page should be a "move" tab. When you click on that, it will give you the option of moving the article. What it really does is make a new page of the title you enter, copy all text from the old page to the new one and replace the old page with an automatic redirect to the new one. So any old links will still take the user to the new, correct page. You can also make a manual redirect from a new page to an old one (such as redirecting "Elves" to the main article on "Elf") by putting on an empty page
#REDIRECT [[Target Page]]
This can be taken one step further by going to a redirect page and clicking the "What links here" page on the lower left, which will list every page with a wikilink to that target. You can then go in and edit the old links to the new target, but this isn't necessary. If nothing links to the redirect page, it can be deleted or left up in case other pages link to it in error in the future. Deleting pages needs to be done by a sysop. -- Yoda8myhead 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all that :) Very informative. --brandingopportunity 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Very useful indeed. --Vagrant-Poet 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)