Talk:The Belgariad

Images

Ugh. I'm assuming the images used for the books are the USA editions. I strongly suggest replacing them with the UK edition covers which are aesthetically much more attractive - they have better designs and artwork by far. If no-one objects I may do this myself soon. Exxolon 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Book of Alorn, Book of Torak and Supernaturalism in The Belgariad

The articles about minor concepts in The Belgariad are not sufficiently independently notable to justify their own articles. As such, they should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't enter into it, it's a matter of article size, flow and common sense - there can be spin-out articles. While notability is not transferred, the book series themselves are notable, and deriative works or terms that merit an article which would not fit into the larger main article, are also presumed to. I agree these should be merged, but the question is where they should be merged, If they're merged into this article, what would the section heading be? This one is an article ln the series of books known as The Belgariad. We also have The Mallorean, as well as other articles. Perhaps the two Books (Alorn and Torak) should be merged into Supernaturalism in The Belgariad. Dreadstar ☥ 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, create a section in Supernaturalism in The Belgariad called "Holy books" or something like that... Dreadstar ☥ 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that Book of Alorn and Book of Torak need to be merged. The Belgariad is a fairly short article; merging Supernaturalism in The Belgariad there would not lengthen it beyond the length that article should eventually attain. You may want to review the proposed guideline you quote as it states the opposite of what you suggest. As per that proposed guideline, "the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage". Supernaturalism in The Belgariad is currently a completely unsourced article; merging it into this article is the least that should be done. Neelix (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, maybe you're right, but I don't think we're really talking about the subject being "split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment". I'm not opposed to creating a new section in The Belgariad called "Supernaturalism" and putting all the information from the three articles above into it, then creating a summary-style section in The Mallorean that links to it. Dreadstar ☥ 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead expansion

Coming to this article with zero knowledge of the series, it would be of great help if the lead were to contain a brief summation of the major plot-points and/or key concepts of the novels in question.    DKqwerty    06:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is going to do this, I cannot I still haven’t finished the series, please do not spoil the story for anyone looking to read it and wondering what it is about 176.134.68.140 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series might qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

lengthy synopses

The synopses of these books have gotten extremely long. Can we trim? Valereee (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)