Jump to content

Talk:Eragon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEragon has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Archive 4 created

[edit]

there has been no discussion here for a couple months, so I archived the previous talk page. Now we have a clean slate to discuss on! Spinach Dip 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this up to FA status? (eventually)

[edit]

A simple question (if there's anyone out there who is interested).

I think this is the best candidate for FA in the whole Inheritance Cycle series, after some major work, of course.

This is what I'm thinking:

  • Introduction: Needs to be expanded, and should include at least: 5/4/08
  • some information on the following books. 5/4/08
  • some information on number of sales. 5/4/08
  • Publication History: Excellent start, but could use some expansion.
  • Plot Summary: Should be shortened, important parts can be re-written. 5/4/08
  • Reception: This heading can probably be doubled in size, since there are so many reviews available online.
  • Adaptations: This is hardly a single paragraph. I'd like more on the film, something on the videogame, and something about the possibility of an Eldest film in the future.
  • Publication Details: change title to 'editions', then include something about the changes made from the Paolini LLC version to the Knopf version.

Sections and things to be added:

  • Characters: Only the major ones: Eragon, Brom, Saphira, Arya, Mutagh, Galbatorix and The Varden seem like a good selection for use on Wikipedia. Decided not. 5/4/08
  • A Sales and/or Awards section: It's been on the NYT bestseller list for 120+ weeks, I think this deserves a mention somewhere. 5/4/08
  • A couple quotes from Paolini himself: He's given several interviews. I'm sure we can find a couple quotes by him that would spice up the article.

Thoughts/opinions?

Spinach Dip 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting the article up to FA is a great long-term goal. However, I think a more realistic strategy would be to get this article up to GA, then go for a peer review and things. Getting the article up to GA shouldn't be tricky, given that we essentially have a model article - Eldest - to follow.
You've covered pretty much all of the main points in your list of things to do, though I would disagree with your suggestion of a characters section. The Characters in the Inheritance cycle page covers it, and there's a link to it in the Inheritance Cycle infobox at the bottom of the page. And GA Eldest doesn't have this section.
I'll put emphasis on the length of the article: the lead, background, reception, adaptations and publication details sections all need expansion; the plot summary needs some serious trimming (Eldest's plot summary is shorter, even though the book is considerably longer). These days I don't have much time for big elaborate expansions, but I'll try and help whenever I can. In the meantime, be bold and go for it. Una LagunaTalk 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, GA is the first step; but I see nothing that should stop us from getting to A-class, and eventually FA.
If you're looking for something to do, helping with prose and keeping the vandals away would be increadibly helpful.
Work will start in a few days if all goes well! Spinach Dip 08:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some potentially useful sources

[edit]

These have some useful information in them which should definitely be incorporated into the article:

Una LagunaTalk 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Began the major editing phase

[edit]

Well, I got to it a little later than I intended, but I have finished 2/6ths of the major sections listed above. I will get to the others when I can. Any input, help with prose, or other related stuff would be greatly appreciated.

Spinach Dip 09:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The last 2 edits (by an annonymous IP), were both my own. Sorry.
Spinach Dip 09:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Critism

[edit]

Does anyone think it was a bit stupid critisising Eragon for being like Lord of the Rings in having the elven and Dwarven races with different languages, considering there are hundreds of fantasy's that are exactly the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.247.122 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be stupid, but in a 'reviews' section, wiki is concerned with what people thought of the book, not whether or not those opinions are stupid. Spinach Dip 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not a critic for the fact that Eragon was like lord of the rings because Tolkien's lord of the rings was inspired by the novel:The ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpxp4 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

o_0 The Ring was written several decades after The Lord of the Rings. --132 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The only thing involving a 'ring' I know Tolkien was, for a fact, familiar with, was Wagner's Nibleung operas and the legends that inspired them. And, as a matter of opinion, I think the criticsim is fair. Paloni (or however his name is spelled) made all of his languages have a similar feel to Tolkiens, drawing from the same sources and such. I.E. Dwarvish is rough with runes, elvish is flowing and beuatiful... and it isn't just Paloni. Just about all fantasy fiction is guilty of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.150.165 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Star Wars? http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1866494 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.164.8 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source which mentions similarities between Star Wars and the Eragon book, then yes, we can include them. However, the Everything2 article you linked does not count as a reliable source; neither do the sources it in turn cites. Una LagunaTalk 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found it amazingly humorous that 500 million people can all read Eregon and come to the same conclusion (that the plot is basically Star Wars with the serial numbers filed off), and yet Wikipedia uses the Weasel phrase "reliable source" to disqualify everyone whose done the homework on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That so-called "Weasel phrase" forms some of the core principles of Wikipedia. If you think you know better, take it to the policy's talk page. Una LagunaTalk 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to the poster above me, that wikipedia policy in question was in place long before this article was written. And there is no reason to dispense of policy for a single article such as this one. Spinach Dip 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps... but eventually you have to accept that if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, drops duck-shit like a duck, and water rolls off its ass like a duck, then its an obvious Star Wars rip-off. I don't need a reliable source to tell me the sun will rise in the morning, after all.
The article already mentions similarities to Star Wars. We're not trying to pretend people haven't noticed. The only reason the similarities to Star Wars get a very brief mention is because we're following policy (sources deemed trustworthy have barely mentioned it - to put more emphasis on it would therefore violate WP:NPOV). As I said above, if you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, then this is not the place to object to them. Una LagunaTalk 10:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dude, think about it.stuff in () means part of star wars. A normal boy becomes a dragon rider, (Jedi) gets taught by an old hermit, Brom (Obi-wan) goes to the varden (Rebel alliance) to help fight the king, Galbatorix (Emporer) because he is the only dragon rider left (only jedi left). they win the first battle, then Eragon (Luke) goes to that swamp place (Ellesmera) to be trained in the ways of magic (the force) and when he learns that the varden (Han, Leia etc.) are in trouble, he goes to help them. Eragon (Luke) ends up fighting Galbatorix's (The Emporer's) best fighter, Murtagh (Darth Vadar). Eragon (Luke) loses the battle as well as his sword (lightsaber).

Knapper1176 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (will add more when i read third book)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying we can't add any information to the article about the similarities between Eragon and Star Wars without reliable sources to back it up - otherwise it counts as original research. Basic Wikipedia policy. Una LagunaTalk 10:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think the Criticism section a bit biased? The one negative review is derided, and there is not an equal ratio of negative-positive reviews. I, for one, detested the book and its sequels, but that is just me.

Presentiment (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Presentiment[reply]

Is this some kind of joke? There is no requirement for "a reliable source". Tolkien's page has absolutely no citations whatsoever for "He was a close friend of C. S. Lewis—they were both members of the informal literary discussion group known as the Inklings.He was a close friend of C. S. Lewis—they were both members of the informal literary discussion group known as the Inklings.". I dont see a single one of you deleting that off the page and screaming "No reliable source!". You simply accepted it as fact. You don't demand reliable source for some things but demand reliable source for this article? Please, that's blatant favouritism and violates wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.186.249 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to plot summary

[edit]

The plot summary appears to have been radically changed, from this to this. The new version is slightly longer (835 words instead of 815). There are a few issues with punctuation and the like which could be easily corrected. In terms of summarising the plots they're both pretty good, though this new one contains a few unnecessary details. However, instead of consisting of 7 good-lengthed paragraphs, it instead consists of nineteen, most consisting of just one or two sentences. This gives two problems: the plot summary now needlessly takes up much more space, and if we made this a GA candidate, the GA reviewer will note the short paragraphs. One or two one/two-sentence paragraphs is acceptable, but the number we have here makes it quite choppy and much less smooth to read. In its current state, it might even result in a GA fail.

Resolving these issues would give us a plot summary very similar to the one we previously had. Therefore I think we should reinstate the old plot summary. Any objections? Una LagunaTalk 09:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reinstated it. The new one was needlessly wordy and had way too many details that weren't necessary. The short paragraphs were also a huge problem. It was better before, both in length and necessary details. ...Though the old version could still using some cleaning up and making it more concise as well. --132 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A link to a source was broken, I retrieved the page with Internet Archive. But also this link to Barnes and Noble has problems: now it talks about the second book, Eldest, not Eragon! Internet Archive gives various result, but which one shall we pick? --KingFanel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonriders of Pern

[edit]

Has anyone noted the similarities and differences between Eragon and Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern stories? 69.42.7.212 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes; however we cannot mention this in the article without a reliable source to back the claim up. So far, nobody here has found such a source, so we haven't mentioned Dragonriders of Pern in the article. Una LagunaTalk 07:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Za'roc?

[edit]

The plot summary mentions Eragon's use of Za'roc--presumably a sword or dagger--but the word occurs only once, with no explanation of its nature or significance. (Not everyone has read the book.)drone5 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out - replaced the one instance of Za'roc with "his sword". In this case the specific sword used is not particularly significant. Una LagunaTalk 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

[edit]

I don't know if this is in any way relevant, but there is a fairly blatant typo on page 311 (paperback version, not largeprint). The sentence goes: "...-that fact was oft repeated-..." when it should have been 'Often' instead. It could just be a little comment about the editing or something similar. --Stripy Socks (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most books have one or two typos in them. As always, this is only worth including if it's notable. That is, it is mentioned in reliable sources. Una LagunaTalk 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'oft' is a legitimate word and in this particular context is correctly applied. No typo has been made, and no grammar errors have been made. No comment needs to be made on the editing of this book. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/oft --Jim42jim42Talk 22:24, 21 Aug 2010 (UTC)

reorganize and expansion for FA

[edit]

I'd like to help take this article up to FA, but my idea involves quite a lot of reorganization and expansion so I would like to first get a consensus. I would split background into two sections, Concept and development and inspirations and influences. Then a genre and themes section along with a style section would be needed. Finally, a publication history section will be added. Ideas? Derild4921☼ 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkienistic plagiarism

[edit]

Eragon - Aragorn, Farthen Dûr-Barad-dûr (note exotic circumflex), Khudzul-Nazgul... I can't be the only one to notice how Paolini has gutted Tolkien's works. The difference is that Tolkien was a notable Oxford linguist, expert in Norse and Anglo-Saxon (and not bad with Finnish either), whereas Paolini seems to be writing fanfic. I doubt Paolini speaks any of the aforementioned dead languages, let alone Finnish, but if someone wants to correct me, do! --MacRusgail (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are not the only one to have noticed this (see here, here, here, here...). However, alleged plagiarism of specific names have not been discussed by reliable sources; any content concerning name plagiarism would count as original research. The same goes for most detailed criticisms levvied at the book: it's not that we haven't noticed them or we refuse to acknowledge their existence, but simply that they're not notable enough for inclusion beyond "similar plot", "similar setting" etc. Thanks, Una LagunaTalk 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a "reliable source" that mentions the similarity in names: http://contemporarylit.about.com/cs/currentreviews/fr/eragon.htm . It's "reliable" enough to have already been quoted (selectively) to give the impression that it reviews the book in positive terms. Reading the actual review, its conclusions are rather more mixed ("Paolini’s writing is still somewhat immature", "Paolini borrows a bit obviously from the authors that inspire him", "Paolini shines at creating interesting characters without a great deal of depth"). It also lists names from the book that are very similar to those in other works. 86.7.31.97 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Information

[edit]

The Film Adaptation section mentions that the Eragon film is the thirteenth-highest-grossing movie in the live-action fantasy genre, highest-grossing movie with a dragon at its focal point, and the second-highest movie in the sword-and-sorcery subgenre. It cites three charts on Box Office Mojo, last retrieved in 2007. The site is continuously updated, and Eragon has since been superseded by other movies, dropping it to 25th on the fantasy list, 2nd on the dragon list, and 3rd on the sword-and-sorcery list. I'll make the necessary changes for the latter two, but it's mentioned in the Article that Eragon's position on the Fantasy list is lower (21st instead of 13th) when adjusting for inflation. I couldn't find that information on the site, so I'm going to leave that sentence alone so someone with better knowledge of inflation than I can properly edit it.

Additionally, should something be added to those particular sentences once they are updated to clarify the fact that they are subject to change and may possibly be outdated/inaccurate by the time a reader sees them? "As of March 2012," or something like that? -Rycr (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars is a fantasy book?

[edit]

From the Genre section: "The book has been compared to other books of the fantasy genre such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings." Star Wars is not a book, and arguably it's not fantasy. 98.245.172.221 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eragon. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eragon

[edit]

Really enjoyed the article as well as the topic! Are all of the sources listed in the article completely reliable? And also the Film Adaptation part of the article has some strong points, but do you think the paragraph relies to heavily on quotations from reviewers? Happy editing! V00d00Child (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 45 references and it would be good if they all satisfied WP:RS (the reliable sources guideline), however typically a few may not be of the best quality. If there was a specific example that was questionable, you might mention it here. If there is no response, more input can be requested at WP:RSN (the reliable sources noticeboard). The procedure would be to use the article title as the subject for a new section and post a brief extract from the article as the text in question, and give the reference used in the article to support the text. There is no need to format the reference—just post the reference's core information such as a URL. Also mention why you think there might be a problem. However, there may not be much feedback because people are generally busy.
There are quite a few quotes in Eragon#Film adaption. See WP:QUOTE for a guideline. I think the quotes are ok because there is no good way to paraphrase the points they convey, and the fact that several significant media outlets had negative thoughts provides encyclopedic information. Provided the quotes do not misrepresent the reviews (by cherry picking a couple of bad words from a generally favorable review), they are probably fine. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be more specific next time! Thank you for the advice. I see now sometimes the only way to adequately cite an article is to use various quotes instead of close paraphrasing. Thanks for the feedback! V00d00Child (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list?

[edit]

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 would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eragon. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published?

[edit]

This article states that Paolini's parents "self published" Eragon. I can't find any reliable sources on the matter but my understanding is that they had founded a publisher called Paolini International LLC sometime around 1997 and decided to use it to publish there son's work. As such I think the term 'self-published' is a little misleading. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Adurna" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Adurna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20 § Adurna until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eragon&oldid=1214747021"