Talk:Empire of Iuz

Context tag

Three users think this tag is inappropriate here. One thinks it is appropriate. It shouldn't be re-added without discussion, and re-adding it multiple times without discussing is edit-warring. Rray (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this article reads (at the time of writing) as follows:

"In the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game, the Empire of Iuz is an empire ruled by the demigod Iuz".

As it stands, this sentence fails WP:WAF, which states:

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info".'

Secondly the first sentence "should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context". That context should be a real-world context, not a fantasy one. It is too easy to copy the in house style used by Wizards of the Coast in their publications and promotional material (such as their website) that applies a heavy in universe perspective as if it were fact. I must request that the context cleanup template be restored until these issues are addressed. Reverting my edits does not address these issues. This article is bad enough without trying to stop other editors from attempting to improve it. The attempt to uphold the illusion that this article not about a fictional empire ruled by a fictional character must stop. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since multiple users disagree that the template is appropriate, re-adding it wouldn't be helpful. I've seen no evidence that anyone is trying to stop someone from improving this article. And I've seen no one make any assertions about this empire being anything other than fictional. Wikipedia works by discussing and agreeing upon changes. Your combative approach here isn't at all helpful toward collaborating on improving the article. (Didn't I see an edit summary where you called another editor "dummy"?) If your actual goal is to improve the article, you'll stop edit warring and name calling, you'll stop asserting ownership of the article by insisting that a tag you added must not be removed, and you'll actually edit the article to improve it. Rray (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the motivation of multiple users, since none of them gave any reason for reverting my edits - I presume they acted in good faith, but they have not gone on the record as I have done. I, on the other hand have given a reasoned account of why I believe the context cleanup template is highly appropriate to this article, and those reasons are derived from the relevant WP Guidelines which have been cited above. I assert no ownership over this article, but I am entitled to edit any article, and if I give reasons for doing so, then others can understand why I have done so. If you disagree with the reasons I have given, please discuss this now. I acknowledge my use of the word dummy in my initial edit summary is not appropriate (appologies - no insult was intended to be made against any specific person), but don't use this as an excuse to avoid the issue: the opening sentence is written from an in universe perspective, and does not provide any real world context for a reader not versed in the role-playing publications of Wizards of the Coast. I put it to you that this is a reasonable basis on which to add the template, and I request that it be restored. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence explains that this is a location in a campaign setting for a specific fantasy campaign. It also links to other articles which describe the larger campaign setting and the game. This provides context. No one is using excuses to avoid the issue. Your edit warring and name calling are relevant because they distract people from actually improving the article. You say that this is your goal, but your behavior says otherwise. I'd suggest that you rewrite the lead to demonstrate how you think it should be written. If everyone agrees that your version is an improvement, then you've achieved your stated goal without edit warring.

As far as being the only other editor to "go on record" here, you re-added the template (multiple times) before anyone else who objected to it has even had a chance to discuss it on the talk page. If you add a template, and someone objects to it and removes it, the next step is to discuss it on the talk page. (The next step is not to revert their edit while calling the other editor "dummy".) It's called "be bold, edit, revert, discuss". No one objects to your right to be bold and make edits. But if people disagree with them, they have every right to revert them. At that point you have every right to discuss it on the talk page and try to be collaborative. Rray (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If the name-calling wasn't directed against a specific person, then it seems it was directed at everyone who disagrees with you. It's a clear lack of a collaborative attitude, and it's unfortunate and counter-productive. Name-calling doesn't improve articles. Neither does edit-warring. Rray (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The template needs to be added because it is relevant to the incomplete state of this article; removing the context template does not address the issue that for a non-expert, it is hard to understand what the Empire of Iuz is about. For instance, why is this territory classed as an Empire, rather than a Kingdom, Confederacy, Protecterate, Realm or Commonwealth? Why did the authors use this Roman term used to describe this fictional territory? What significance does this Empire have, other than being the domain of Iuz? The leading section provides little or no content or context to help the reader understand the sections that follow, or why this territory is significant. I am asking very straight forward questions that should be answered in the leading section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the answers to those questions might be interesting and appropriate to add, and those questions are straightforward. But I (and at least two other editors) disagree that the lack of those answers warrants the addition of the context tag, or that a non-expert is going to be confused about whether or not this fictional empire is real. At any rate, why don't you research these questions and make the changes you'd like to see in the article? I'm sure no one would object to a sincere attempt to improve the article. Rray (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

These are just some of my ideas based on my very limited knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons. However, because the opening section does not provide any context, readers with different backgrounds, education and worldviews to mine will find this article difficult to understand as it presupposes an understanding of what this fictional empire is about. As it stands the article is not accessible nor understandable for non- experts; the opening section should be written based on the assumption that readers are reading the article to learn, not to reafirm existing knowledge. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the leading section needs to fully explain the subject, which it does not do. I don't understand you objection to the cleanup template other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as one short sentence can hardly explain this fictional domain to a wider audience. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't accept my invitation to improve the article yourself then. I'm sure no one would object to your sincere attempts to actually improve the article by expanding the lead yourself. (You could have rewritten the entire article at this point. I'm sure everyone would enjoy seeing what a Gavin Collins compliant article would look like, too.)

I've expressed my reasoning for removing the tag, as have other editors in their edit notes. No one cited anything that would indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your assumptions about other people's motives are irrelevant. At any rate, I believe you've asked for other opinions, so perhaps it's time to move on to something more constructive and let them weigh in? Rray (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• You don't understand why I can't improve the article myself? I tried, but my edits are being continously reverted and I am then accused of starting an edit war! It seems to me that I have been prevented from editing, no matter how reasonable an argument I make for improving this article!.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't tried to improve the article. You've repeatedly re-added tags that other users disagree with. That is edit-warring, plain and simple. (And not only that, but you called another editor "dummy" while doing so.) Repeatedly re-adding tags that several other users disagree with and have removed is edit-warring. It's an attempt to use brute force to get your way.

You then decided to try to find some other tags that might apply and added them, even though they were redundant and inaccurate. Reverting your mistakes isn't preventing you from editing. And if you don't agree to have your contributions edited mercilessly, then you're in the wrong place.

I think you need to understand that adding tags doesn't improve the quality of an article. If you sincerely want to improve the lead, try rewriting it and including the answers to the questions that you think require answers. No one is preventing you from editing. I'll invite you again to demonstrate that you really want to improve the article. You can do this by actually editing the article and make the changes you think are appropriate instead of insisting on adding tags that are either redundant, inaccurate, or both. Rray (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• On the contrary, they do improve the quality of the article, but it takes time. The cleanup templates are there to encourage editors with either the knowledge or skill to actually make improvements. By deleting the templates, and reverting my edits, you are actually deterring other editors from getting involved. In the long-run, articles only improve if other editors are involved, not just me. If you are trying to put people off, I must agree you are working very hard at this. Lets put the templates back, and discuss how cleanup can be effected, rather than pretending that there is no problem at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm responding to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here are my thoughts.

• Adoption of this article by another wikiproject is needed. Perhaps that would get more editors involved in improving the article. At this point, it looks like a draft with several empty sections.
• As a draft article, templates are warranted. I agree with Gavin Collins that the whole point of templates such as "cleanup" and "OR" are to encourage other editors to address the flaws identified by the templates.
• Templates do no harm, especially if their presence is given reasonable justification on the talk page. For example, I was recently embroiled in a huge debate at Talk:Zinfandel#Wine_distribution (USA) POV and accuracy because I felt a POV tag was warranted in one section. In spite of the vehement arguments, the parties involved didn't remove the template because I provided justification for keeping it, and it stayed for three months until I got around to rewriting the questionable section to address my concerns in a way that also satisfied others.
• Which brings me to another point: If you slap a cleanup template onto an article, and you have knowledge of the subject, it behooves you to make improvements to the article to get the template removed. You don't have to do this right away.
• Regarding the specific templates:
  • The Notability template can be removed once the lead section is expanded to describe why we need an article on the Empire of Iuz. If this empire is an integral component of the game that affects many Greyhawk campaigns, then explain why. If it's just flavor or background, then this whole article should probably be deleted. In either event the template goes away.
  • At first glance, the article looks like Original Research to me, but an OR template doesn't really belong because there's a list of references. It isn't obvious that the article reflects the references, so somebody may come along and stick another OR template in. The way to fix this problem is to provide inline references on specific sentences, not just list a bibliography at the bottom of the article.
  • The "nofootnotes" template can be partially addressed through inline references, but it would be nice to have some reliable references from something other than "in-universe" sources. This tag should stay until some can be found.
  • The merge template is ridiculous. Get rid of it. It points to an article about a Biblical city, which has nothing to do with this article. I don't see another similar article to which this can be merged. Actually it points to an article called LUZ, not IUZ (I'm capitalizing it because L and I look the same in Wikipedia's default font). I agree the article could be merged to Iuz, not Luz.

I hope this helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research: Merger Proposal

All of the in universe content of this article should be removed. However, there is a problem: all of this article as it is currently written is from an in universe perspective. Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. This is why footnotes are so important when presenting fictional content: they assist the reader to distinguish what is primary source material from synthesis and I have therore added the OR cleanup template, in the hope that someone will comeforward with either a complete rewrite or at least provided footnotes citing the passages to which the plot summary refers to. If footnotes cannot be found, I propose this article be merged or deleted, as its content makes no assertion of real-world notability, nor does its in universe perspective provide any real-world context, content, analysis or critisism of the subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot template

I removed the plot template for three reasons:

1. The plot summary simply isn't too long. The entire article is quite short.
2. The in-universe template has already been applied. Redundant templates aren't helpful.
3. It seems to have been added as a retaliation for the removal of your context tag.

Adding tags isn't meant to be used as a replacement for actual editing. If you're really interested in improving the article, actually edit the article instead of adding as many tags as you think you can "reasonably" justify. Rray (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot summmary, or description of this fictional empire in fictional terms, makes up the whole of this article, as there is no real world content. It was added in good faith, and if your read the section WP:NOT#PLOT, you will see that it is applicable to this article. Please restore the Plot cleanup template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates should be used sparingly. Adding two templates to address one problem isn't helpful. Let's see what others' opinions are before we decide whether or not to restore the template. Rray (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its actually two problems: one is that the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and the other (which I think you agree) is that it fails WP:WAF. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since solving the one problem would solve the other, having two templates is unnecessary. At any rate, you have asked for third party opinions, I think. So we can look forward to some others weighing in. (I think you and I have both made our positions clear now.) Rray (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree there are two cleanup issues to be addressed? I don't understand you perspective whereby you object to one cleanup template, and not the other? Please restore the plot cleanup template so this issue can also be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag

I removed this tag as well. I don't see any evidence that this article contains original research. Excessive plot summary is not the same thing as original research. I'd invite you (again) to make improvements to the article instead of adding redundant or inaccurate tags. Your stated goal is that the article be improved. At this point you've done nothing to actually improve the article. Rray (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained the reasoning behind adding the template in the section above. I cannot stop you from removing the template, but it is clear to me that you are trying to precipitate an edit war and that further progress on improving this article it dependent on obtaining independent perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of edit warring is absurd. You've repeatedly added useless, redundant, and inaccurate tags to the article. I've removed your tags in good faith. Since you add literally dozens and sometimes hundreds of tags a day which I don't revert, it seems hard to make a case that I'm interested in an edit war. (Removing three or four tags that shouldn't be there in the first place isn't edit warring.)

It's becoming increasingly hard to believe that this isn't just contentious editing on your part. I've invited you at least three times on this page to edit and improve this article instead of just grasping for more tags to add. I'll extend that invitation again: please demonstrate that you're actually interested in improving the quality of this article by making real edits meant to improve the article, instead of just adding redundant and inaccurate tags.

I'd also invite you, if you don't agree to that, to take a break and do something else for a while, and consider whether or not your behavior (edit-warring, name-calling) might be having the opposite effect of what you're intending. Articles are improved more effectively when editors try to collaborate. Your combative behavior here discourages collaboration and article improvement. Rray (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now you are flaming, by applying generalisations without justification. I have not only given reasons why the cleanup tags are useful, appropriate and highly applicable to this article, but I have also cited the relevent Wikipedia guidelines in every instance that relates to them. Feel free to remove all the templates, but I doubt you will find a guideline to quote that says "The OR cleanup template should always be removed where an article is entirely made up of a synthesis of fictional content because....". As far as I can see, you are basically POV pushing on the basis that this article does not have any specific cleanup issues to be addressed. Nobody was interested in this article until I added the cleanup templates; now at least these issues are being discussed, not ignored. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not flaming or pushing POV. And I've been quite specific. Your comments to that effect are ridiculous. Rray (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags and improvement

This is an answer to the request for a third-party opinion on the issues in this article.

It's clear that this article needs improvement; the regular editors of this article should consider themselves lucky that it hasn't been put up for deletion yet, as in it's current state and with the trends in Wikipedia leaning towards obliterating content rather than creating and maintaining it, it is extremely unlikely that it would survive the AfD process under WP:PLOT. I've seen far better articles get deleted.

This discussion shouldn't be about what tags shouldn't or should be on the article; that kind of behavior is only slightly less lame than wikilawyering, as they are non-substantive edits. What should be happening is the overall improvement of the article. I'm sure that the two of you combined could have addressed at least some of the concerns that have been brought up as part of this discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What is to be done?

• In the above section, I have highlighted the main problem with this article - it has no real-world content, let alone any reliable sources which can be used to build an article that meets the requirements of WP:FICT. Otherwise, we are at a point where there is stalemate as to what is to be done.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no stalemate. The article has problems, and they've been identified. What remains to be done is to edit the article to improve it. Rray (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So if you take out all the plot summary based on synthsesis that makes up virtually all of this article, what is left?--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • One question Gavin: you're rather quick to call content synthesis, but have you read the sources behind the article? If not, and I suspect so, how exactly do you make that determination if you lack the background to do so? If you've got some manner of crystal ball, please share with me and others, it sounds like it might be fun to have that degree of divination at my fingertips.Shemeska (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you think the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it. I think you're familiar with the AfD process. Rray (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I am proposing merger. What say you? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I have no objection to a merger. Rray (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Is there any of this article's content that you believe should be merged in the article Iuz? Since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, such that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, then can you provide footnotes which identify content that can be transcribed? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I didn't suggest the merger; you did. I invited you earlier to fix the problems you've identified with the article. You did not fix those problems. I then suggested that you nominate the article for deletiog. You didn't do that either. You suggested a merger, so one would think that you would have an idea of what content you'd like to merge into the other article. All I said was that I had no objection to the merger. Rray (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Since you cannont provide attribution for any of the content you have contributed to this article, there is nothing to merge other than a mention of the empire on the Iuz page. I will add a redirect template to the article page and we are done here.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • I haven't made any contributions to the article other than to remove some redundant and/or inaccurate tags. (Removing tags doesn't require attribution.) Rray (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Iuz

Nobody has problems with a merger. Someone has reverted the redirect, and I just restored it. Please, make further edits over at Iuz. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the merger on Thursday, APril 24th 2008 unless someone objects. Web Warlock (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No consensus again

I say to leave it alone. Merge if you like, but apparently you can try to delete it over and over and it's indestructible or something.  ;) BOZ (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)