From PathfinderWiki

Images on Page [CONCLUDED]

I have placed the goddess' symbol in the infobox as normal but I cannot seem to process the externally hosted image that used to be there. None of the html tags I added to the <img> tag seemed to work. Can I get some help placing it correctly please? --Fleanetha (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern vs. ancient Azlant in infobox

Fleanetha, I've separated the mechanical info in the infobox for (presumably) modern worship and ancient Azlant. Can you confirm that the separation is correct, and cite sources where information in the infobox isn't from Into the Nightmare Rift 70-75? Alternatively, it might be useful to have separate infoboxes for modern and ancient Lissala considering that the differences are such that she is effectively two different deities in this context.

See also the discussion on Talk:Nocticula#Cult of the Redeemer Queen. -Oznogon (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would definitely be useful to have two separate infoboxes for the modern and ancient versions. Having them both together is a bit confusing, IMO. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Added Talk:Lissala/Infobox to demonstrate how it'd look with separate infoboxes. -Oznogon (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Saw your request so having a look.
First, use of superscripts is another option as at Nyarlathotep, who has three aspects; and I think they are better than numbered refs that you have to look up, probably below the page fold. However, Nyarlathotep's alignment stays the same, so the changes there are less pronounced than with Lissala. Even so, comparing Nyarlathotep with Talk:Lissala/Infobox shows the latter as being a lot clearer / cleaner. So, I would vote for separate infoboxes in these cases.
As a final point, didn't we have a similar debate over Creature templates where a page has X and Dire X on it. I think we agreed there that separate infoboxes worked better, so I believe we are being consistent were we to go for separate deity infoboxes. I cannot find that debate in the forum, though, to help and I looked for a long time. Best I could find was this Forum:Minor variations of monsters but it is not exactly what I was looking for. I think we had a more recent debate specifically about multiple infoboxes: anyone else remember? --Fleanetha (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Torble swarm and the talk for the various fly articles house the discussion I think -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if torble swarm is it, since it's from 2009. My guess is Forum:Tiered NPC levels, where Fleanetha mentioned the dire creature situation and BrOp also suggested multiple infoboxes in a 2016 post for when a character changes over time (and where I argued against them when only a few points of data are different).
I don't think my stance has changed much since then, either. If it's a big enough difference to justify two separate infoboxes, it's arguably a big enough difference to justify two separate articles where those differences can be explained with sufficient context.
Lissala feels like an exception to that, though, because her worship underwent a dramatic transformation with Earthfall and the destruction of Azlant. They are both aspects of Lissala, and I'm not sure how that could split across articles, and the changes are such that cramming them into a single infobox is confusing.
By contrast, the discussion on Talk:Nocticula is about a heretical splinter group that has its own worship, and a separate article with its own infobox makes more sense there. -Oznogon (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's a 'contrast' anymore, since (spoiler warning) as of the newest AP Nocticula's worship has underwent a transformation similar to that of Lissala's. On a similar note, should the green men of different alignments have different deity infoboxes as well? - HTD (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(reset indent)

If you'd like to discuss green man, please do so there. If you'd like to discuss policies, guidelines, style, or practices explained on Help pages, please do so there. These are all exceptional cases and we're best served discussing this one without tangents to other exceptions.

Nocticula's canonical change is similar (and wasn't known at the time I commented). I think both articles should have separate infoboxes for clarity. There's also the rare but not unprecedented option of having a wholly separate subpage (such as Lissala/Ancient Azlant or Nocticula/Pre-ascension) dedicated to the previous incarnation of each deity, similar to History or Timeline subpages on some articles. -Oznogon (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It is related to this discussion by virtue of being both deities with multiple alignments and domain lists. Also, from what the subscribers have said, it looks like we have the third deity to undergo an alignment shift now (Mhar). - HTD (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)