Talk:List of Dragonlance characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography length

As a suggestion, don't make the biographies too long. If the character has an individual page, like Raistlin, Tanis or Goldmoon, expand about their lifes there. If the character doesn't have a page, like Verminaard or Ariakas, put the information in the list directly. If the section for the character becomes too long, it can also be moved into a single article. This list is just a way of quickly remembering someone: you don't come here to learn where Tanis died, or where is Linsha, but instead to read a few sentences that will refresh your memory in a character. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Should be Jasper Fireforge, not Jaster (with a T). Dragonhelm 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You know, you can edit the contents, be bold and correct whatever you think it is needed. -- ReyBrujo 22:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To add

Steel Brightblade, Theros Ironfeld, Otik. I wonder if there shouldn't be more sections, too. That 'heroes' area is getting pretty long. There needs to be a differention between Heroes as in protagonists and heroes as in...good guys. The Companions are Heroes much moreso than, say, the Majere children. I don't know what this second category would be called, though.

Maybe there should be a seperate article for 'minor' Dragonlance characters? --Masamage 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Or we could split it up by class, as well as alignment (good, neutral, evil). ddcc 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so like, warriors here, mages there? That's an interesting idea, but I don't know how intuitive it is. Groups according to what they did feels a little more natural--like, Heroes of the Lance, etc. Or, actually it could be by species! I think I like that idea most.

Another curious omission: Dalamar! --Masamage 04:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The list was focused on characters that weren't likely to get an individual article. It was then expanded to add the notable characters as well. As for dividing, we will have to build a custom TOC to handle the long size. I agree that the division must be understandable to the casual user. Maybe by Age, Guild or Race instead of just hero/villain. If the list becomes just too big, we could split the list. However, note that size limits are not applicable to lists, as it is supposed every entry is not worth of an article. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps List of Dragonlance Heroes and List of Dragonlance Villians, and then leave others here? DoomsDay349 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Steel as Villian

I don't know that Steel should be counted as a villain. In reality, a villain is someone who does something that is bad for the rest of the world, while a hero being the opposite. Did not Steel sacrifice his life in an attempt to defeat Chaos and save the world? That counts as a hero in my book. Just because your evil doesn't mean you can't be a hero. DoomsDay349 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to go along with this he was buried in the Tomb of the Last Heroes.--Kranar drogin 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Others

I am not sure that Silvara shouldn't be kept in the heroes section. She found how draconians were being made, rallied the silver dragons, and fought first hand during the War of the Lance. After which she traveled the lands doing other deeds, then arrived on Southern Ergoth to take on the form of a Knight of Solamnia to fight the great white there. To me personally, she is a hero, and more-so than some of the people in the heroes section now.--Kranar drogin 23:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, are there any book considering her openly a hero? We just need a book stating that. Currently, the list basically divides between Heroes, Villians and Others. In example, Laura Majere is included in the Heroes category, but should be in the Others instead, because she is not a hero (unless something happens in Prisoner of Heaven that makes her one, novel that I have yet to read).

The best solution would be to split the list in two, but there is no certain way of doing it. Notability fluctues, sometimes a minor character can become protagonist in another novel, thus we would be forced to move the character from a list to another, losing the history of that character. Race and gender are static, but not really useful for the casual reader. Guild could be, but people usually changes guilds often. -- ReyBrujo 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Laura isn't in Prisoner of Haven, but she is in Saving Solace as an Innkeeper. Honestly, she should be in Others. As far as Silvara is concerned, The Odyssey of Gilthanas, page 82 marks her as being a "heroine of the metallic clans". I can't list the gaming books, cause I am not sure.--Kranar drogin 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

She is indeed a heroine... yeah, that sounds pretty much a verification, good enough for the list. Feel free to move Silvara back to the heroes list, and Laura to the Others list. I am afraid that, as time passes, most of the ones found at the Others section will end up as heroes. -- ReyBrujo 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In the War of the Lance sourcebook she appears listed, but not in a way to explain a heroine title (page 277). So, we have in-universe confirmation, but not out-universe. Since we are using the information only to categorize characters, it is fine enough. -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, War of the Lance wouldn't explain it since it mainly is dealing with about 351 AC roughly. She prolly would have gotten it after the War. I mean, the dragon has been around for a LONG time, since the Third Dragon War and done many things. So there are many possibilities as to why she was given that honor, but my guess is for finding out about their eggs and getting them into the war. Also, most of the people you have in the "Others" section works, Amero is a toss up reall, he might be considered a hero for helping his people fight off the other barbarians and dieing in the process, but the others are right on.--Kranar drogin 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Minor Characters Mentioned w/out Entries, & Citation Requirements

I updated this page a while back to add Wanderer/differentiate between the Elder, and the son of the two heroes from the War of the Lance. Is it a problem if the info is from the Dragonlance Nexus? If it is, then I'm fine with searching out other references. If not, should I bother adding cites to the pages which reference the details, or just for major stuff above simple DOB's and when someone went somewhere? I'm basically just trying to get some of the interlinks between various DL articles to actually go somewhere. One example of a problem is that, though the Goldmoon and Riverwind articles mention their daughters who played at least small roles in some books, they're conspicuously missing here. Another is Linsha Majere within this article; its just a redirect back to the article itself, which is rather unhelpful. Ipso-De-Facto 11:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

DL Nexus is definitely an OK reference. Normally we just make a Reference section on the bottom and put a link to DL Nexus in there. Ddcc 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

DL Nexus is alright, but remember that that site writes in character style, while we should be out of character. Check the fiction guidelines for more. DoomsDay349 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Incredibly Long

This article is really, really long. We need to get some of this off of here and on to some new pages. Any thoughts? DoomsDay349 03:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Major characters of Dragonlance and Minor characters of Dragonlance? --Masamage 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...that could work, but instead List of major Dragonlance characters and List of minor Dragonlance characters. What do you think? DoomsDay349 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently learned that the naming style guides only require "List of..." when that's all it is. If there's info about them, which we have, it's better to leave it off. --Masamage 05:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Really! That's news to me. OK, yeah, then we can go with that. We can also cut the Heroes of the Lance and any Dragon, which have their own lists...damn, we have to rename like everything now! DoomsDay349 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tracked down where I'm getting that from, and it looks like it was actually the style guide of WP:anime. So, not entirely relevant, if someone wants to dispute it. :) I still think it's excellent advice, though. --Masamage 07:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm going to pose the question at the help desk, and also we can discuss at the WikiProject page. For now, let's continue discussion here about possible moves. DoomsDay349 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what we should do is create the major characters list and the minor characters list. That way, all Dragonlance characters can be incorporated. Even the very minor ones, for instance, from Minotaur Wars, Kolot or Nephere. Important enough for a listing, but not for a whole article. DoomsDay349 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ddcc 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I'll start it soon. DoomsDay349 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds grood to me. --Masamage 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Grood? ;) Ddcc 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. "Grood! I mean good. And great. Great and good."[1] --Masamage 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK! Here's my plan. Firstly, we can remove every entry on the Heroes of the Lance; they have their own article, it's plain redundancy. Secondly, we take all the major characters and move them to List of major Dragonlance characters, and all the minor ones to List of minor Dragonlance characters, which in all likelihood will be just as long or longer. I have a proposed organizational plan for minor characters; we go by novel. For example, taking from Night of Blood, the heading is Night of Blood, and in bold, not subheadings with the name of characters, we put the char's name, in order of appearance. So, then, under Night of Blood we put Hotak, and then a SHORT, maximum six sentences, entry. It keeps it minimal size, however unfortunately this page will still be quite long, but the organization makes it easier to deal with. Good? Or rather, grood? :) DoomsDay349 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would rather list it under series, since there are three books for the Night of Blood series, and creating three different entries on the same characters is just plain foolish. Ddcc 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better idea. But what about loosely connected series, like Tales, Heroes, or Meetings? DoomsDay349 05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For series like Dragons of Autumn Twilight, etc, we can classify those by series. For the others that are loosely connected can be grouped under a big "series" heading, with individual book subheadings, that way everything will at least have a "Series heading". Ddcc 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start on it in a little bit. DoomsDay349 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I've got too much time on my hands, I've already gone ahead. Two problems: Ddcc 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I determine if the character is major or minor? I'm currently going by whether the character has a {{main|...}}.

How should I categorize a character like Bupu who appears in both Chronicles and Legends? I've tried using the name attribute of the a (hyperlink) tag, but Wikipedia doesn't utilize it.

In addition, these need to be fixed:

Articles that redirect to List of Dragonlance characters. (Change to the major or minor list, and add the link to specific section)

Fix double redirects.

Classification on minor or major is a big thing, and I think we should hold a discussion of all of them here or at the Wikiproject page. And also, remove the Heroes and Villians claimers, it's unencyclopedic.

The characters: (can you tell I copied the TOC? lol)

• 1.1 Alhana Starbreeze- vote major

• 1.2 Astinus- vote major

• 1.3 Caramon Majere- vote major

• 1.4 Crysania-vote major, she needs and article

• 1.5 Dhamon Grimwulf-vote major

• 1.6 Elistan-vote minor, we should probably condense the info on him and remove the article

• 1.7 Flint Fireforge- vote major

• 1.8 Gilthas Pathfinder-vote major

• 1.9 Goldmoon-vote major

• 1.10 Huma Dragonbane-vote major

• 1.11 Kaz the Minotaur-vote major

• 1.12 Laurana Kanan-vote major

• 1.13 Linsha Majere-vote minor

• 1.14 Palin Majere-vote major

• 1.15 Raistlin Majere-vote major

• 1.16 Riverwind-vote major

• 1.17 Sir Pirvan The Wayward- minor

• 1.18 Steel Brightblade- major

• 1.19 Sturm Brightblade- major

• 1.20 Sturm Majere- minor

• 1.21 Tanin Majere- minor

• 1.22 Tanis Half-Elven- major

• 1.23 Tasslehoff Burrfoot-major

• 1.24 Tika Waylan-minor

• 1.25 Ulin Majere-minor

• 1.26 Usha Majere-major

• 2.1 Fistandantilus- minor (condense his info and rdrct the article

• 2.2 Ariakan Ariakas- minor (same as Fist)

• 2.3 Kitiara Uth Matar-major

put main|Category:Dragonlance organizations

• 3.1 Heroes of the Lance

• 3.2 Last Heroes

• 3.3 Heroes of the Heart

• 3.4 Dragonarmies of Ansalon

• 3.5 Knights of Takhisis

• 3.6 Legion of Steel

• 5.1 Alleran Waylan- minor

• 5.2 Berem/The Everman- minor

• 5.3 Laura Majere- minor

• 5.4 Solostaran Kanan- minor

• 5.5 Wanderer the Elder- minor

• 5.6 Wanderer (Riverwind's Son)- minor

Those are only my votes, you can contest if you like. DoomsDay349 03:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm voting by how I've organized it. In addition, I've contacted Kranar and Rey. Ddcc 03:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By that you mean how everything already is? DoomsDay349 03:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Basically, I disagree with you on elistan, linsha (Seeing that she has her own trilogy), tika waylan, ulin majere, Fistandantilus, Laura Majere, and Berem. Ddcc 03:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Elistan I think wasn't too important, Linsha I concede, but she needs a bigger article, Tika yeah but needs a better article, Ulin I don't agree with, he's only made fleeting appearances in a few novels, same with Laura, Berem was only a minor character in three books, and Fist I'm not so sure about...he did have a novel so yeah, with more info he could be major. DoomsDay349 03:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just chiming in. Linsha is a major character, as well as Fistandantilus, as he has appeared in countless novels. I haven't read new (as in, Dark Disciple onwards) books, but until then, Ulin and Laura were minor characters. Pirvan... didn't he have a series of four novels for himself? If you consider major in a "timeline influence", then yes, he can be considered minor. But if you consider major as in protagonist of novels or series, he is major. -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pirvan had a series to himself, but it was a relatively minor one; as far as timeline influence goes, then he is minor. And that's pretty much how I would go with it. As for new stuff, I'm trying to think about what's new...Rise of Solamnia and Price of Courage, pretty much, which don't affect Laura or Ulin. DoomsDay349 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you guys consider Major and Minor? I would agree that both Caramon Majere boys and both Wanderers are minor. Solostaran? Not too sure on that one. Most of the others as mentioned above are major, even Ulin and Linsha. Ulin has had his own book with his wife, Linsha had her own series, plus a couple short stories. Or are you trying to say that Major/Minor is how many books they have been in and/or how they have influenced the Timeline. I would say a character like Dougl from Chronicles would be minor (being just a boy mentioned).--Kranar drogin 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One possibility is to classify "major" characters as those who were important in books written by Weis and Hickman. So the definition of "important" is still debatable, but it means that Ulin or Pirvan or others get disqualified, which both seems appropriate and trims down the field. --Masamage 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it would be fair to say that only books by MW and TH are characters that are major. Then you would have to rule out Vinas, Huma, Kith-Kanan, Dhamon Grimwulf, Feril, and many many more. So I would have to disagree with this definition, but you guys can do what you want.--Kranar drogin 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. X) We'll see what others think, though. --Masamage 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would look at the overall effect on the series, obviously Tasslehoff was important, but Pirvan hardly effects the series at all. Ddcc 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to go with characters that had a major effect on the series and setting in general. Pirvan had little to do with it, whereas Raistlin (yes, I have to pick Raistlin) has an enormous effect on the setting. Things like that. Agreed, however, about MW and TH; they started the setting but are not the entire setting. DoomsDay349 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Names

Shouldn't the real names be included somewhere in the article? I mean, instead of "Tanis Half-Elven" it could be something like "Tanthalas (Tanis) Half-Elven." I didn't edit anything because I only know Tanis's and Laurana's (Lauralanthalasa Kanan) real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.53.86 (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dhamongrimwulf.JPG

The image Image:Dhamongrimwulf.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this page?

Why does this page exist? It seems to be a hodge-podge of various things. If it is meant to be a list of (and short description of) characters, than that is what it should be. But do we really need both a list of major and minor characters? And why are (some) dragons listed separately? And organizations?

I realize this was discussed previously, but the last work I see done here was 2 years ago.

My thoughts - lets get the major list updated and in good order, and disolve the minor list into the pages on each book. If someone only appears for part of a single book, or even part of a single trilogy, that's where they should be. If they are a major player, let's get them on the major list.

What do you think? - IanCheesman (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates needed

I just noticed Mina section has "rumors". Not only does that seem odd for wiki it has also been fleshed out by now and Mina is a god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Major and minor status?

There are characters listed here as major characters and also on the minor character page. Someone fix it. I would but the wiki nazis are out today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd care to enlighten...? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Par-Salian

I consider him a somewhat significant character and there is no information about him posted neither here nor at the List of minor Dragonlance characters. Anyone considering posting info about him? - Reanimated X (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You may do so if no one else steps up. :) 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Khellendros

This discription needs some looking into, Skie (khellendros) was in fact the only NATIVE dragon to Krynn out of all the Overlords, it is also not clearly stated that he was killed his interference with Mayls attempt at godhood infused him with power and sent him to the "grey" where he continued his search for his lost rider Kitiara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.93.141 (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Legion of Steel, Mina (Dragonlance), and Knights of Neraka

Most Dragonlance characters are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles. A search for reliable, secondary sources for the following character articles reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage, therefore the following articles should be merged here: Legion of Steel, Mina (Dragonlance), and Knights of Neraka. Neelix (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Steel Brightblade, Sturm Brightblade, Dalamar, Flint Fireforge, Tanis Half-Elven, Heroes of the Lance, Laurana Kanan, Palin Majere, Riverwind, Kitiara uth Matar and Tika Waylan

Some Dragonlance characters are sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, but most are not. A search for reliable, secondary sources for most of these character articles reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. As such, the following articles should be merged here: Steel Brightblade, Sturm Brightblade, Dalamar, Flint Fireforge, Tanis Half-Elven, Heroes of the Lance, Laurana Kanan, Palin Majere, Riverwind, Kitiara uth Matar and Tika Waylan. Neelix (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that proposal. However, WP:SECONDARY would still apply to a merged list. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your list has some of the most important Dragonlance characters on it. If they aren't notable enough to justify their own articles who exactly in Dragonlance is? (Bguy7177 (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Any character that is discussed in a sufficient number of reliable, secondary sources is sufficiently notable to justify their own article. From what I can tell, those Dragonlance characters that fall into that category are Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Goldmoon, Caramon Majere, Raistlin Majere, and Lord Soth. If there are no objections, I will perform the merge. Neelix (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not seeing what is different about those other characters. From looking at their pages it looks as though most of their sources are primary as well (which is what you would expect for wikipages about fictional characters.) If the basis for having a seperate page is having a large number of reliable, secondary sources about the character then probably no Dragonlance characters should have their own page. By contrast if the basis for having a seperate page is importance to the Dragonlance storyline then it doesn't make any sense to delete the pages for characters like Tanis, Laurana, Kitiara and Sturm, all of whom are major Dragonlance figures. (Bguy7177 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

To be clear, importance to the Dragonlance storyline has nothing to do with notability on Wikipedia; having significant coverage in a sufficient number of reliable, secondary sources is the relevant criterion. I am not basing my assessment of the characters on the sources currently cited in the articles above, but rather the number of sources I have been able to find for each of these characters having done an independent search for each of them. Do you believe that all the Dragonlance character articles should be merged here? Neelix (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's rather difficult for me to answer without knowing which third party reliable sources you are using for the ones you think rate their own pages. I wasn't aware that there was much in the way of reliable third party sources for any Dragonlance character, but if there are such sources for those characters then I have no objection to them keeping their own pages (though they really need to cite those sources on their articles.) As for the proposed merger itself, are you talking about doing a Full content-paste merger or a Selective paste merger?(Bguy7177 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

I am far more concerned about making sure the merger takes place than making sure it takes place in a particular manner. Most of the content of these articles is completely unsourced by reliable, secondary sources, so much should probably be removed according to Wikipedia's guidelines on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Neelix (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what you think is different about Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Goldmoon, Caramon Majere, Raistlin Majere, and Lord Soth. Virtually all of the references on those page are from primary sources, the books themselves. Banaticus (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. On a second look, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Goldmoon, Caramon Majere, and Raistlin Majere should be merged here as well. Lord Soth is also a Ravenloft character, so that article probably shouldn't be merged here. Neelix (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Goldmoon and Raistlin

The above discussion initiated by Neelix appears to have been based on the presumption that no secondary sources existed for the Dragonlance character articles which he merged, because at that time there were few if any non-primary sources present in the articles. However, I restored Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere in September, because we did find an independent reliable source for each of them. If the original presumption was incorrect, then my presumption would be that since we did find sources then there are likely to be more sources out there for at least these two characters, if not some of others as well.

If the current sources on these articles are found to be insufficient coverage, then I would suggest adding one or more tags to attract the help of interested editors, such as {{refimprove}}. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the amount of coverage in the two articles, the Goldmoon source I added has a bit more than a paragraph discussing the character. The Raistlin source is less substantial, just mentioning a plot point, but in the course of my research on the character I found some much more significant coverage that I've been meaning to add but have not yet gotten around to. In particular, there is a section in the book Religious Concepts in Fantasy Literature called "Twins – The Divine Sign" (pp. 28–30) that goes into quite a bit of detail about him and his brother. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking about it. Do the Dragonlance books themselves meet the notability criteria? There are lots of reviews, though, do a Google search for "Dragonlance reviews". On a completely unrelated note, did you all know there was a movie? I didn't, I just found it when I searched for Dragonlance reviews. Banaticus (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The books themselves are primary sources, and while they can be reliable for information about the character, they cannot be used to establish notability. Reviews, as secondary sources, could be used for that if they went into detail about individual characters such as Raistlin. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

2 things:

• Current coverage is insufficient to allow for the articles to be restored. Per the GNG we need significant coverage from multiple sources, that one source was found for each article is still not enough to build a full article, since there was no independent source to begin with. Torchiest already pointed out the new source for Raistlin is merely plot summary. If there is something substancial enough in Religious Concepts..., that's always a good thing, but with only one source of significant coverage I can't see why it couldn't be dealt with in List_of_Dragonlance_characters#Raistlin Majere. As for Goldmoon, I only see two lines paraphrasing the author's interview, yes, that's relevant but since it's the only non-promotional/non-primary coverage in the whole article, no, it's still not enough to have a stand alone article.
• I don't buy the "I'm sure we can find more sources" stuff. You've given us that excuse for countless other D&D articles and we're still waiting for those sources several years later. I don't see any problem with working on sections of a broader article until there is need for a stand-alone article. The content is still on WP, and you're still given the possibility to extend it (and discuss it) until a split becomes necessary. The thing is, there was consensus for merging, so I don't see how you could just decide to ignore that and go for an article, while there are other, better ways to do things than having an article scarred with ugly "notability" tags for God knows how long, just for the sake of it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Folken de Fanel's comments above; splitting the articles off and tagging them for improvement is not the way to go. Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere should be merged back into this list. We should only be splitting off subarticles when the information from secondary sources presented in their sections grows to such a great extent that the section would be too long if all the information from secondary sources remained in that section. Neelix (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that, once again, certain editors are chronically wrong on notability. WP:GNG does not require that sufficient coverage be present in an article for it to be notable, merely that such coverage exists. Torchiest's post above indicates that sufficient RS'es exist, so if anyone wants to contest that, then the proper route is to start a merge discussion, which does not yet appear to have been done, since there are no merge tags on Raistlin Majere. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A merge discussion has already taken place, and consensus was to merge. The merger was reverted without discussion. Merge tags do not need to be added in order to start a merge discussion; the article should be re-merged and a split tag should be added in order to start a split discussion if users feel that a split is necessary. The issue is not notability; even notable subjects should only be split from parent articles when a sufficient amount of secondarily-sourced information has been added to make the section on the parent article too large to support all the included information. That has not happened in this case. Neelix (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, both Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere were properly tagged for merge a week before the actual merge was performed. As Neelix said, there was a proper discussion with consensus to merge. BOZ's unilateral decision to unmerge, whatever his beliefs, was thus inappropriate. As I don't see why we should be strict with procedures for merging and not for unmerging, I'm immediately re-merging the articles, and I support Neelix's comment about a split discussion. In any case, I don't see any consensus to split, so at this point there's no reason whatsoever for stand-alone articles to exist. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Folken, this discussion is still ongoing, so please restore the articles for the purposes of discussion. You have now reverted them three times, which appears to be a unilateral attempt to avoid discussion with your fellow editors. I am willing to discuss this issue with you, and other editors have volunteered to seach for sources, but it does not help civil discussion for you to circumvent that by inappropriately reverting the articles repeatedly. As to why you "don't see why we should be strict with procedures for merging and not for unmerging", this seems strange to me as you have been very strict on many other procedures. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the discussion as to the merge of Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere took placehere between november '11 and march '12, and concluded on a consensus to merge, performed in march '12. The current discussion cannot be about merging the articles, since they've already been merged. Unless I've overlooked something, you opened no discussion before quietly unmerging the articles in september '12, without even notifying Neelix, and thus violating a previously established consensus. Though I'm not opposed to your attempts at finding more content for possible future stand-alone articles, the decision as to whether the articles should be unmerged does not belong to you alone. If this is supposed to be the proper unmerge debate that you should have started in the first place, then it's barely 3 days old and far from unanimously in favor of unmerging, so there's no reason to leave the articles in their unmerged state any longer. If you want "civil discussion" to happen, then the first logical step is to correct your original misconduct, don't you think ? I can't see how we could even have a "civil discussion" if the whole premise is biased by your consensus violation. So "for the purposes of discussion", the articles will stay merged until a new consensus says otherwise. You're free to edit the sections in "List of..." or submit new content in this discussion or even use your own userspace, that's what any other user would be required to do in such circumstances and I don't see why it should be different with you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

...except that neither article was ever tagged with that discussion, was it? Invalid discussion, since it wasn't ever visible to the source articles' casual readers. And this nonsense about a new consensus needing to be developed to unmerge is likewise hogwash: one additional source, which has been added, invalidates the previous discussion. Your conduct--edit warring to enforce a nonexistent--consensus is disappointingly familiar. Have you learned nothing in the months you've been away from the topic? Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus to merge the articles, so there must be a consensus to unmerge. I don't see that. No unmerge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Misconduct is a serious charge, so hopefully you will have some evidence to base your claim that I acted in appropriately in unmerging these two articles. Please point me to a place anywhere in policy which states that a user cannot restore an article so that sources can be added. If anything, my understanding is that policy would encourage an article to be restored so that sources can be added. Additionally, it is my understanding that a merge discussion is not binding in the same way that a discussion such as an AFD would be. The consensus from the previous discussion was based on the sources available at that time, which is why that consensus is not binding on the article's current state. Additionally, I am not required, to my understanding, to contact any user before restoring an article in this manner. An article can even be restored after an AFD related to notability, if sufficient sourcing can be found after the fact, and contacting the closing administrator in that case is considered an obligatory courtesy, but even in that case contacting the administrator is not required; it is certainly not required in this case because Neelix did not close this discussion in his capacity as an administrator, and I only contacted him as a courtesy because you requested me to do so. If any user in this case is guilty of misconduct, it would be you for your edit warring on these articles, for which Jclemens warned you before you reverted once more. I have requested page protection from a neutral administrator to prevent you from committing further disruption. BOZ (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Editors may propose a change either by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion", WP:CCC. Not only you went against basic policy of discussing before changing a consensus, but your started an edit war to impose your views instead of taking it to the discussion when you saw there was disagreement to your actions. I don't call that proper civil behavior. As far as I can see, you, Jclemens and WebWarlock are, as usual, the only ones who have displayed a disruptive behavior, and your attempts at forcing an unmerge through relentless edit-warring, bullying, threats, false allegations and factually erroneous statements has actually overshadowed any civil discussion and consensus-building there could have been on the question of unmerging. The best proof of that is that 99% of your comments are not focused on actually showing why these articles should be unmerged, but on a so-called right to ignore a consensus when it doesn't suit you and bypass any discussion to impose your view. You have lost all credibility.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That line you quote applies only if I were trying to argue that the consensus at the time was incorrect, which was not what I was doing. I restored the articles specifically so that sources could be added, and within the last few days they have been coming out of the woodwork despite your stringent objections. I assert that all of the wrongdoing on these articles was yours, and yours alone. If you truly think I did something wrong here, then take me to WP:AN/I. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, of course, if you revert a merge that's because you totally agree with it. And that's also why you refused to let anyone merge it back. That's very logical. Please stop trying to find poor excuses for your misconduct. WP:CCC is clear, "an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". Your edit, by cancelling the merge decided by consensus, completely modified a matter resolved by pasr discussion (that there shouldn't be stand-alone articles for these characters). You and your fellow D&D fans are the only responsible for the wrongdoings on these articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you accuse me of misconduct, but this is not the proper place for this sort of talk. If you are unwilling to take my actions to WP:AN/I or another appropriate venue, then please cease with the character assassination altogehter. If you persist, then I will take you to WP:AN/I instead. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, talk about making accusations in an "inappropriate venue"... That's actually the worst thing you could bring up, considering some of the messages some D&D fans have adressed to me both in the past and in this very thread, in less than appropriate venues. So, you see, I can play this game too. Hope that now things are clear, we can finally go back to actual content debate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere remain unmerged?

• No merge or unmerge, whatever's relevant in any given five-minute timespan, for Raistlin Majere. I've myself added sufficient independent reliable source citations to the article to demonstrate notability as a distinct topic per WP:GNG, above and beyond the ones that were already present. No opinion on Goldmoon as yet; I haven't done the source search and am not presently feeling up to it. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree that any of your edit would change anything to the reason why Raistlin Majere was merged in the first place. GNG requires "significant" (ie "more than a trivial mention") coverage from multiple reliable sources. As of now, I can only see minor trivia, mere mentions of the character's name within plot summaries for the novels and plot paraphrasis instead of actual commentary. I'd actually love to see more than one sentence of the "extremely deep" discussion from a "Ph.D thesis" you refer to, rather than taking your word on it for granted. As far as I can see, notability has not yet been demonstrated and your comment is premature at best.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The 1UP.com citation contains significant coverage of the character as such. As to the thesis, you can download it as a PDF from the address linked; look for yourself. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (And of course, where I've been saying "thesis" I meant "dissertation".) —chaos5023 (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• On Raistlin, I say keep him as a separate article, as there are now five secondary reliable sources referenced in his article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't see any of these sources bringing significant content~beyond mere mentions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The Religious Concepts source is a three page chapter, hardly a "mere mention". The 1up source spends half of the review talking about Raistlin, and the thesis, per WP:AGF, contains significant coverage as well. Thus, significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Based on the three new sources added to Goldmoon, covering artwork based on the character, a notable actor talking about performing the character, and a literary analysis of the character, I'd say keep that article separate as well now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Separate articles While I'm less sure about Goldmoon than Raistlin, the expectation is that merged fictional elements can be unmerged when additional sources have been found. Raistlin was voiced by Kiefer Sutherland in a (direct to video and admittedly terrible...) movie adaptation--surely there's enough additional commentary on just that real-world adaptation floating around if what we have now isn't sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep both as articles. Agree with the above about Raistlin, and an excellent source was just added to Goldmoon, clearly more than a "mere mention". BOZ (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep both with Kiefer Sutherland and Lucy Lawless doing the voices....cool. Sourcing more than just mentions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• cross wiki to a fansite and merge of the megapixels of content in both articles, there are 5 trivial items sourced to third party sources. neither article has any chance of being described as based on third party sources thus failing basic criteria of having a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  The basic criteria for having a standalone article do not speak at all to what the article is based on, they speak to what coverage the topic has. Whether the article content derives primarily from the third-party sources is a content issue, not an article existence issue -- obviously, from the very fact that article content is what's at issue. You're articulating a view of notability that is completely contrary to established project-wide consensus and so should not be assigned weight in this discussion. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Wp:WHYN explains why you're wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Not really, no. It explains the reasons why we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing about WP:WHYN supports the deletion or merging of articles based on fixable content issues, and you know as well as I do that there is no consensus in this project to do that. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Huh? even if a subject meets GNG, WP:N says right in the lead. "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's what we're doing right now: hashing it out. I will say that while I disagree with your merge contention, I do agree that the articles need to be trimmed of most of the in-universe content. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  you cannot skip the first portion of establishing that the article content can be created based on third party sourced materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not; I think there is enough sourced content for a separate article. Removing the crufty stuff would make it easier to take the measure of the article though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  if you trim the cruft so that the articles would actually be based upon the 5 trivial items that are from third party sources, you get no content worthy of a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  That's an opinion; apparently not widely shared. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  it may not be widely shared by the cruftians discussing these fictional characters, but it is indeed widely share across the project as a whole, so much so that it is in the widely approved WP:N. and the local consensus that wants to ignore the generally accepted application cannot claim the ability to override it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  So the community has already assessed and evaluated the current state of these two articles, and generally agree with your individual assessment of them? Oh, I must have missed that. BOZ (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  The community has assessed and approved the policies and guidelines and wording of WP:N. If your assessment of these articles' content is that they are "based on third party sources", then there is a severe WP:COMPETENCY issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's clear that the content of these articles is drawn mostly from primary sources, yes. In the case of Raistlin Majere, a minimal review of cited sources makes it clear that it would be easily possible to base a useful encyclopedia article on the independent sources (though it would be a different article); in that respect your conclusion is wrong by your own criteria. The sourcing cited renders the "third party basis" criterion (which remains an elaboration upon the GNG, not an element of it) a content issue, not an article existence issue. I'm not yet satisfied that that is the case with Goldmoon, which is why I haven't registered an opinion on that article. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I never did say that all of the article's content is currently based on third party sources, so I don't think it's fair to consider me incompetent based on statements I did not make. You may not be comprehending what I am actually saying, so I will try to explain better. You said that "if you trim the cruft so that the articles would actually be based upon the 5 trivial items that are from third party sources, you get no content worthy of a stand alone article", referring to the content currently on these two specific articles, which I stated is an opinion and not widely shared (based on the responses in this thread thus far). As Torchiest is unsuccessfully trying to point out to you below, "rely primarily on" is not the same as "only use". For example, it is perfectly allowable to use primary sources to verify basic facts about a subject, such as "this character is described in this novel" and so forth, which is useful and sometimes necessary to fill in the blanks that reliable sources do not cover. My opinion would be that if "less than half" of any article's content is sourced to primary sources that would be acceptable to still allow an article to be primarily based on third party sources, although I'm sure other people would say more or less than that. Never, in any policy I have seen, does it specify that primary sources are not allowed to be used as sources at all under any circumstances. Therefore, I believe that with a serious trim, these two articles could easily be based primarily on third party sources even if they currently are not, and therefore I believe they should be kept as stand-alone articles. If you still don't accept this explanation, then I don't know what else to say to you. I really do not need to convince you that I am right to achieve consensus in this particular discussion on these two articles. BOZ (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I will take a stab at reaching that 50% primary sourced content and then you assess whether the article is still viable as a stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. BOZ (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  To follow up one last time: an article needs coverage in reliable independent sources to be notable, but it doesn't have to rely solely on independent sources. It just has to rely on reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Why do keep insisting on ignoring such explicit contradictions to your position that an article only needs something by third parties when WP:WHYN states things like "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." (emph added) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Can you point out the place where I contradicted that? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  "but it doesn't have to rely solely on independent sources. It just has to rely on reliable sources." your comment from ~30 minutes ago. Is your memory that short? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Solely is quite distinct from primarily. Plenty of articles make use of non-independent sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep both separate articles Enough valid information to fill them. Nothing gained by eliminating that. Listing how they developed, what the writers said about them, what reception Goldmoon got, etc. is encyclopedic content. These articles aren't just listing their fictional histories, otherwise there'd be no valid reason to keep them as separate articles. Dream Focus 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

OK, so do we have consensus that the articles Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere are far from in a perfect state, but that we have sufficient sourcing where a merge is not required? BOZ (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition, then I think it is fair to declare that the consensus is indeed in favor of leaving these two as separate articles. BOZ (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough! ;) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Other characters

OK, now that we have demonstrated notability on at least two of the characters previously assumed to have no secondary sources, I think it is time to re-examine some of the other characters. Rather than risk any further imagined controversy or alleged misconduct, I will bring this to the talk page to discuss before taking any action. At this time, this is not a discussion to split anything per se, just an attempt to locate sources. We already have one source added by User:Daranios [2] useable for several characters. On the previous merge discussion from a year ago, the only article not ultimately merged was Lord Soth; as this decision had more to do with having no appropriate merge target than having sufficient sources, I think we could stand to improve the sourcing on that article as well. Although not part of this list, the god Takhisis was improved significantly by User:Webwarlock, but anything else we can find for her would help further; Paladine (aka Fizban) is also not part of this list but could likewise use more sources.

It may not be easy to find sources for all of the character articles which were merged, so it would be best to focus on those which played a major role in the series. The key articles to search on would be the main article for the Heroes of the Lance [3] and those of its other members, which includes: Sturm Brightblade [4]; Tasslehoff Burrfoot [5]; Flint Fireforge [6]; Tanis Half-Elven [7]; Laurana Kanan [8]; Caramon Majere [9]; and Riverwind [10]. There could also be an argument for working on important supporting characters like Tika Waylan [11], Dalamar [12], or Kitiara uth Matar [13]. I'm not familiar enough with the series to identify what other characters would be worth searching on, but I figure this is more than enough for now, and greatly appreciate your efforts to help. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dragonlance isn't my area of expertise; I'm more of a Forgotten Realms guy. :) But, just off the top of my head, I'd say there's a chance Caramon Majere could pass WP:GNG, since there's at least the one source I mentioned above about both Raistlin and him, for starters. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good place to start! BOZ (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I restored Caramon Majere - feel free to add your source there. It looks like it has a few non-primary sources already. BOZ (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Tanis Half-Elven, Riverwind, and Kitiara uth Matar, as another user has found sources for each of them; if you can, take a look and see if you can find more. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that these articles are not consensus-sanctionned and are thus liable to be re-merged anytime.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If you insist on having another merge discussion for these other articles I would be happy to start one, but in the meantime a user has found sources that he has been adding when he has the time; I would like to at least give him a few more days to finish that before we go to an official merge discussion. BOZ (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the undiscussed splits that were against consensus. Significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources has not been demonstrated for either of these four characters. More importantly, the amount of information that can be found in reliable, secondary sources for either of these characters can easily fit on this list. It is only when such information cannot fit on this list that a split is justified. Neelix (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so let's have a new discussion on a merge/split for these characters. For what it's worth, I have also restored Sturm Brightblade and Flint Fireforge and will include those as well. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the main Dragonlance characters remain unmerged?

This discussion is to determine if Caramon Majere, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Tanis Half-Elven, Riverwind, Kitiara uth Matar, Sturm Brightblade, and Flint Fireforge should remain as separate articles, or be merged back into the list as per the previous discussion initiated by Neelix last year. I restored each of these to add additional sources, as the basis for the merge was that these articles had no secondary sources. I believe each of these now has at least two independent sources, which would mean that they demonstrate at least a good start at notability. Additional sources came out previously during the merge discussion for Raistlin and Goldmoon, so I am hopeful that additional sources will come to light on these as well. For my part, of course, I think that we should keep these as separate articles. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do not resplit - This is not how discussion revisiting works. I have reverted the undiscussed splits that were against consensus. Please do not resplit unless discussion results in a decision to do so. Furthermore, two independent sources does not constitute significant coverage, which is required for separate articles. As I have already stated above, "the amount of information that can be found in reliable, secondary sources for either of these characters can easily fit on this list. It is only when such information cannot fit on this list that a split is justified." Neelix (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but even an AfD is mooted by an improvement that addresses the reason for deletion. To insist that a new discussion must take place is prior restraint that is not supported by policy. In fact, BOZ and others have added multiple independent reliable sources to each of the un-redirected characters. If you'd like to start another merge discussion, then by all means feel free to do so... but you cannot legitimately claim consensus to merge articles that have sources based on discussions that occurred back when the articles did not have sources. Please revert your redirections, or I'll do so shortly. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The reason for deletion is adressed only when those proposing the deletion agree it has been adressed or when enough uninvolved users are given the chance to assess the sources and agree it has been adressed, that's the basis of consensus. Otherwise it's little more than ownership.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Nope. You're not anywhere close to correct, and asserting a nonexistent prior-restraint policy is rather unbecoming. Recall that CSD-G4 only applies to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a deleted document. If a deletion discussion doesn't default to delete with a single change or improvement, there's no way a redirection does. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • And I repeat, there is improvement only when those who found fault with the article agree there was improvement, or when enough uninvolved users are given the chance to assess the sources and agree there has been improvement. You cannot decide there was "improvement" all by yourself, unless you claim ownership of the page. And I'm not refering to G4 or whatever, but to WP:CONSENSUS.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Of course you repeat. You have no policy backing for your repetition, but that won't stop you. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)~
            • Are you trying to say WP:CONSENSUS is not a policy ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Not at all. I'm not disputing that there was consensus to merge this version of Caramon Majere. A year ago, there was a merger discussion, then an unmerger, improvement, and then an unfounded assertion, repeated multiple times in this discussion, that that old consensus applied to the new article. Think they're the same? They are not. So if you want a consensus for improved articles, you need to seek a new one, not pretend that a consensus on a prior version of the article which everyone agrees is better. WP:CCC isn't applicable, because no one has asked for the prior consensus (on the prior version of the article) to be changed. Boz and Torchiest improved the article, obsoleting the old consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
                • That's simply not how consensus works here. Our policy on the subject makes no mention of the concept that consensus can be invalidated by the improvement of an article; such a concept would destroy most of the good that consensus does on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Do not resplit per Neelix. This is not an appropriate and consensual way to work. Per WP:CCC, "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". I haven't seen any changes to the merged articles (ie unmerging) discussed and approved by consensus prior to its implement. It is so easy to discuss sources and new paragraphs in talk pages, or to work on a userified version of the page, that I feel these additions of a few crappy and still mostly primary sources (and I'm not even talking about the ridiculous copy-pasting from other articles) to be nothing more than excuses to force our hands and keep us from redirecting articles that have still not been approved by consensus. And, logically, no, I don't think that the "new" content gives the articles any hint of notability whatsoever. One-word/one-sentence mentions in plot summaries are not the GNG definition of "significant content", and if that's all you could find I definitely don't think it opens the way for big future discoveries. Discussing these for approval as stand-alones now is premature, if some of you want to keep working on improvements, fair enough, but talk pages and userified pages are enough for now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• do not resplit any individual character until there is actual demonstration of significant third party coverage in reliable sources about the particular character. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as separate articles The question above is poorly phrased: there is no need of a discussion or permission to "re-split" articles: the addition of sourcing moots the old discussions. If people would like to start a NEW merge discussion, then that needs to happen ab initio, since the current articles are markedly different from the ones on which the prior discussion was based. AGF'ing that Neelix was unable to get to the request to fix his mistake above, I've gone ahead and un-redirected them, pending the outcome of a new discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since the new sources were added with obvious disregard of WP:CCC, and thus of the consensus, I see no reason to keep these as stand-alones.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed; bold edits once reverted should remain reverted until after discussion has resulted in a change in consensus. The resplit articles should become redirects again until consensus changes. Neelix (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Consensus hasn't changed, consensus has been mooted by additions of sources. You want a consensus? If any consensus existed at the initial merger, you've still got a consensus to merge the articles as they were. But you don't have any consensus for the articles as they have since been improved. Frankly, I don't expect the old consensus to change, because it reflected character articles that didn't make use of the sources we now have for them. But once an article has been improved, the old consensus is no barrier to its existence, and no prior restraint is exercised except in the case of a community decision to WP:SALT a name or protect a redirect against creation, neither of which apply to these characters. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • There are 2 different issues. The first is that these articles were unmerged without consensus to do so, which was a violation of WP:CCC. Any hope of holding a civil discussion untainted by BOZ's unconsensual actions must therefore start with the immediate re-merging of the article. The second is whether the sources and new content brought by BOZ change anything to the previous assessment of the articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • "Unconsensual"? Geez, you make it sound like I raped the articles. :) LOL - I guess that would make civil discussion kind impossible in that case. ;) You are right about one thing though; the sources I added might not help with notability much or at all, so fortunately it's a good thing that other people stepped in to added better sources than mine. BOZ (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
            • The idea that WP:CCC would prevent a user from editing sources to an article--or potential article--is nonsensical. This is not BLP material, it is fictional element content, and absolutely no harm can come by adding new and appropriate sources as has been done in these cases. Indeed, those arguing for retention of separate articles have taken WP:BURDEN upon themselves, which is precisely where the obligation lies. Those advocating re-merging the improved articles must establish a new consensus to do so in light of the improved sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Our policy on consensus does not prevent users from adding sources to an article; that's not what has happened. What has happened is that articles have been resplit against consensus. If those users had added sources to the List of Dragonlance characters article, that would have been uncontested. Again, please stop resplitting the articles against consensus. Neelix (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep separate Caramon Majere, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Sturm Brightblade, and Flint Fireforge, all of which have at least one solid, non-primary source (Flint Fireforge is discussed in the Wolf source, but I have not yet added it) and re-merge Tanis Half-Elven, Riverwind, and Kitiara uth Matar unless more significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be found. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to support this compromise, if we cannot achieve consensus to overturn the merge on all of them. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Why should the standards be lower than in WP:GNG for these articles ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The answer is that it shouldn't; this situation presents no special case. The guidelines clearly identify these fictional characters as insufficiently notable to justify individual articles. Neelix (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I was just curious as to what fallacies they could pull out...Anyway, those who try to unmerge these articles should remember that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS).Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Split out any which have achieved significant mention in two secondary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are no such characters among those under discussion. Neelix (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not by a definition which would render any licensed content non-secondary, no. But such a definition lacks policy support--"secondary" clearly includes derivative works. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Some licenced products might offer some kind of commentary that makes them secondary, however that doesn't change anything to the GNG requirement for these sources to be independent from "those affiliated with the subject or its creator". Which is not the case for any of the articles discussed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • About Caramon Majere: Is there a reason why the given references [1] through [8] together should not count as multiple secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I think his coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. He gets significant coverage from at least the Wolf source. I'm not sure how in-depth the others are though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Passing GNG is not the issue. There is not a sufficient amount of independently-sourced information about the character to make the section about that character too large on this list. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on summary style, the article should only be split off if the section's amount of independently-sourced information makes the section too large, which has not happened. Neelix (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
              • "Too large" sounds ridiculously subjective; how does one determine that? It is a certain number of characters, words, paragraphs, sources, citations, or some other sort of objective yet abritrary standard? Or does one just eyeball and say "it's big enough" thus making it a totally subjective criteria? BOZ (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
                • we determine "too large" the way we determine other items that are not specified is policy with completely objective metrics, (ie most policy applications) by the consensus of the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • I'll also add that though there are multiple sources, none of them actually provide any real-world perspective or commentary/analysis, ie the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG also requires. The sources are merely plot summaries and only serve to reference primary, in-universe information. What little commentary could be extracted from the very trivial coverage that has been found, isn't enough to allow for a stand-alone article, per WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list".Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • I think you should read the Wolf source. It is not plot summary; it is an analysis of the characters and themes of the novels that puts them in the context of real-world religion. Discussing the relationship between Caramon and Raistlin falls outside of the bounds of plot summary; check pages 29–30. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
                      • Ok, I just carefully read them. The first part about ancient beliefs associated to twins is interesting, but without Wolf specifically tying all of it to the characters, we can't make anything of it that wouldn't be OR. Wolf then explain that the 2 characters are the focus of a section of her book because they are protagonists (still no analysis, merely storyline description). Then, p.29, 3rd paragraph, for 11 lines, Wolf paraphrases the relation between the 2 twins in the novel. Now, I haven't read the books, so if all that she writes is actually left to the imagination of the reader and Wolf is on purely speculative territory, fair enough. But it sounds to me like she's merely rehashing actual plot points and actions in a descriptive mode and refrains from any analysis. Then she mentions Raistlin's belief on twinship and actually links it to what seems like real-world belief, however she is not actually analysing Raistlin's and Camaron's twinship directly, in a way that could be used in an article about Camaron (but for Raistlin, yes). Then p.30 we have a short sentence linking Camaron to one of Rathmayr's analysis, but this quickly turns into more plot paraphrasis (again, unless you can prove all of it is not directly showed in the book, it's summary). Unless in some very specific instances of genuine analysis that I'm going to quote, there's nothing more: "Raistlin dominates the relation", "Raistlin can control him to the point of being a fetch dog" (assuming "fetch dog" is never mentionned in the novel), "this is a pattern, that according to Rathmayr, has been observed...". Then, more plot rehash follows. The last piece of commentary is "To Raistlin, all said characteristics of the dominant twin apply except being the stronger first born and more extroverted".
                        So no, there's actually not much analysis in Wolf's book, and most of it is exclusive to Raistlin anyway. Though it's a good start, that in itself is not enough to pass WP:GNG, which requires "multiple" sources and content that allows to write more than "a few sentences".Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Caramon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(please note, this is an aribtrary section break for a cleaner separation of the discussion on this one article; please see section immediately above this one for more input on Caramon)

• Keep Caramon Majere: It seems to me, that the article as it is now contains maybe three quarters plot summary - backed by primary and secondary sources - and one quarter real-world impact and analysis - again backed by primary and multiple secondary sources. This ratio may not be perfect, but: WP:NOTPLOT requires, that an article "should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents". That is fullfilled, so the article should be kept. It can still be improved by those who do not feel happy with the article as it is. Daranios (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I think you're mistaken, most of the real-world impact and analysis is actually about the book and movie adaptation, not the character. Everything else is just mere mentions, and the bulk of comments on the character comes from one single source (Wolf), not from multiple sources. You may want to argue that WP:NOTPLOT is barely met, but WP:GNG is really not.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed; Caramon Majere does not meet GNG. Neelix (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • A few more things could be said (among them, that Neelix said above that passing GNG is NOT the issue), but right now I am interested in the following: I cannot find anything in WP:GNG that says that plot summary, if it comes from reliable secondary sources, is not creating notability. If I am mistaken, could you please be so kind to show me the appropriate section. The requirement to be more than plot summary seems to me to come solely from the additional policy WP:NOTPLOT. Thanks for spelling it out for me. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:WHYN is what you're looking for: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." If an article about a fictional character is full of plot summary, however referenced 2ndary sources, you have just written a "definition" of the topic, ie the fictional substance that makes the character and without which it just wouldn't exist. Which is merely a logical follow-up to WP:NOTPLOT. This seems clear cut to me, but if you have doubts we could still ask WT:N for clarification.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Hmm. I stay with my opinion: Keep Caramon, because, with regard to what you are saying: the character biography we have in the article is both longer than half a paragraph and more than a defition of the character. A defintion could be much shorter. Or from another angle: If I could, say, give a character biography based on 20 secondary sources about a character with just plot summary, I would, in my opinion, have satisfied WP:GNG. If it was about a real person, I could write an article. But because we are talking about a fictional character, WP:NOTPLOT asks for more than plot summary as an additional requirement, next to notablity. So concluding: Those secondary sources, that provide plot summary, do NOT, in my opinion, have to be somehow subtracted from the total of secondary sources, when deciding about the notability of a fictional character. Daranios (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry, plot summary is just the definition of a fictional character. You are unable to provide any piece of guideline proving that plot summary would be anything other than definition, you completely avoided adressing the issue, and since it's likely to be a recurring one among fans of whatever fictional universe WP will deal with, I'll submit it to WT:N.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
              • I am not sure if we really need more guidelines, but you are surely right that this issue will be a recurring one for fictional characters and the like, so maybe it makes sense to discuss this elsewhere. Still I want to add something more here: It sounds a bit accusatory that I should have completely avoided the issue. I have stated that my grasp of "definition" is different from what you said. I can expand on that, if it is found necessary. (Another point: I have not analyzed the given secondary sources in detail, that is correct.) But you would have wanted me to cite guidelines to "prove" my point. Guidelines should not be the solution for everything - but that is my opinion. So to stick to guidelines, I do not feel that you, on the other hand, have "proven" from guidelines that all the plot summary that can be done about a fictional character together is the definition of that character. You have pointed me to WP:WHYN, which requires for an article more than a definition and says "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page". Well, the plot summary in Caramon Majere alone is more than a few sentences. Only part of it is from secondary sources, though. But there are other secondary sources about other things than plot summary. I do still not see from this guideline that secondary sources giving a definition of the subject of article have to be discounted when asking about notability, and that only those secondary sources that do not give a definition can be counted in this regard. Then, about the question what is the definition of a fictional character, WP:WHYN leads to WP:WINAD. That says what a definition should be in general, not giving specifics about certain kinds of subjects. The general "A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term." seems to me to support what I said, that a "definition" of a fictional character can be much shorter than all the plot summary. If I have overlooked a guideline to the contrary of either point, I would be grateful if you cited it for me. Daranios (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, per WP:PSTS, sources that only summarise a primary source are tertiary, while WP:GNG requires the use of secondary sources, in which we can find "analytic or evaluative claims". That pretty much settles it. However I've just taken another look at the sources in Caramon Majere and I don't think we need to bother that much, every single source besides Wolf is trivial and limited to mere one-sentence mentions. #1 is primary, #2 merely mentions that Camaron was central to the plot (hardly a significant comment), #3 and #4 are Wolf, #5 only provides two very generic sentences on Camaron having 2 parents and 1 brother and being one of the heroes who defeated "Takhisis"(hardly significant coverage), #6 and #7 are not independent, #8 is primary, #9 is a mere mention of Caramon appearing in a game, the same for #10 which is not independent, #11 is primary, #12 is a mere mention of Camaron being voiced by an actor in an animated film, #13 is a mere 8-words and generic comment on Camaron, #14 is a trivial one-sentence generic summary of the novel that happens to mention Caramon, and #15 isn't about Caramon at all. With only one source (Wolf) providing significant content in anyway (I'm not even talking about summary vs analysis), the article definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG and I urge you to carefully review these sources and to amend your original comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to look at the sources in detail at some point in future. But two more general points now: Firstly, WP:PSTS says explicitely, that secondary OR tertiary sources are needed to establish notablity, so if, as you say, a source that only summarizes a primary source is tertiary, it IS "counted" when questioning notablity. Secondly a new question arises for me: WP:GNG says: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I would interpret that not to mean that each source has to cover that subject in detail, only that the sources together have to do that. Do you know if it is clarified somewhere which position is correct? If my interpretation was correct, we would have to discuss if the single sources contributions each are trivial - and therefore not "counted" - or not. Being short would be no hindrance - as long as significant coverage could be achieved on the whole. Daranios (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:GNG only states that "Sources,[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.". What you found in PSTS merely lists what respective sources are for ("to establish the topic's notability" for secondary sources, and "to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" for tertiary). There is no mention of notability when tertiary sourced are covered in detail further down the page. As for your second question, WP:GNG#cite_note-1 (from the passage defining "significant coverage") shows examples of one source being trivial, and another being significant, so I'd say it's pretty clear individual sources each have to provide significant coverage. Also, I don't see how you could "write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view" (WP:WHYN) if a single source provides the substance of commentary while all the others are mere decoration, even if it makes a lengthy section.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I am not 100 % sure if an independent soure that gives plot summary only is (always) a tertiary source. But let's assume it is, then I have to say: I do not agree with your interpretation of the sentence in WP:PSTS. If what you meant was true, the sentence would have to be "...Secondary and tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, respectively, ...", and not the way it is now. Additionally, your interpretation would mean that one would NEED tertiary sources in order to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, while in practice (and in the guidelines) Wikipedia articles without tertiary sources are completely fine. WP:GNG does not specifically mention tertiary sources, but to me it makes complete sense if tertiary sources are just as good as secondary (with the exception of Wikipedia, because that would be self-referential), because tertiary sources are sources summarizing secondary and primary sources, so most of the time tertiary sources only exist if there are secondary sources, which can unquestionably be used to establish notability. (Or, in other words: If a specific magazine or book talking about the subject in question establish notability for the encyclopedic Wikipedia, how much more would another encyclopedia talking about the subject do that!) You also mentioned that there is no further mention of notablity lower in the page, where tertiary sources are defined in more detail, but neither is there such mention for secondary sources, so that is no exclusion criterium. About the second point: From the cited example it seems clear to me that sources containing only trivial material about the article in question do not contribute to establishing notability. I have some trouble with what is trivial. But, as already stated, I am convinced that short by no means always means trivial. So I see no problem at all to get a balanced article, if, e.g., you have one long source and several short sources - those can balance different parts of the long source. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources". In the case of a 2ndary source summary, tertiary sources are fine, of course. Not when it is only a primary source summary. WP:PSTS is thus correct when it says some tertiary sources can be used to establish notability, and so there is no contradiction with GNG, as long as we're dealing with secondary sources in one way or another. You do realize that an article only made from tertiary sources summarizing primary sources would not meet WP:NOTPLOT anyway. And sorry but no, GNG says "multiple sources of significant coverage", so it does mean "multiple sources of significant coverage" and not "one source of significant coverage and several of trivial coverage". "Short" does mean trivial, because "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page" (WP:WHYN). Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
        • So, right, tertiary sources have to be evaluated indiviually, but can possibly "count" towards establishing notability. I am aware of the issue with WP:NOTPLOT that has to be solved for an article about fiction. Nowhere, however, does WP:GNG say "multiple sources of significant coverage". It says, that multiple sources are needed, and it says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail", so I still feel justified in thinking that that means "Significant coverage" means that MULTIPLE sources TOGETHER address the subject directly in detail. WP:WHYN, that you quote, too, says a subject does not qualify for a separate page, if sourcES (plural!) support only a few sentences. It does NOT say If only a few sentences could be written and supported by EACH sourcE (singluar) about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. So nowhere is anything saying, that short means trivial. Daranios (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
          • As I don't want to repeat myself over and over (since you don't seem to be here for anything else than to advocate larger inclusion threshold for fiction), you'll have to take the matter to WT:N.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
            • After all that has been discussed so far, it seems to me I am justified that a larger inclusion threshold than what Folken de Fanel seemed to advocate is well within the guidelines as they exist now. If I would have been shown convincing evidence to the contrary, I would have had to argue for the keeping of Caramon Majere differently. I am sorry if this was the wrong place to ask my notability questions. So, starting to look at the individual sources of Caramon Majere: #1 and #8: Primary. #3 and #4 together are one significant secondary source. #5 is independent, contains a concise summary of Caramons role in the Chronicles, and is therefore short but not trivial. Contributes to notability (as argued above). #9, #10, #11 and #12 all show that the fictional character Caramon appears in media beyond the novels and short stories creating him. Here the question is what is trivial. To me trivial means self-evident, not contributing new, unrelated information. On this basis, these sources contribute to the notability of Caramon to the general public. Again short but not trivial. It could be argued that #10 and #11 are not independent because they have been published in a magazine owned by TSR. The appearance of Caramon in other media that is documented by these to sources is in products from other companies, however. For former source #13 I have corrected/specified the urls, so that it appears now as #13 and #14. It contains a very short analysis of Caramon's character, and is therefore transformative. Again short, but not trivial. #15 (formerly #14): I cannot access the linked url, so I cannot say if there are more details. The quote given in the article is once more short, but it describes the reception of the character. Transformative, not trivial. #16 (formerly #15): Without accessing the article myself from the sentence in the article and Folken de Fanel's comment it does not deal directly with Caramon. So it only supports the significance of #3/#4. #6 and #7: Secondary, but probably not independent. #2 I cannot correctly access. As you, Folken de Fanel seem to have accessed it correctly, could you (or someone) perhaps be so kind and post an url other than the query, or tell which number of the query results would be the relevent one? Thanks a lot. Daranios (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
              • It the moment I am not clear about reference #2. To sum up the rest: #3/#4 (aided by #16) is one longer, significant, independent, secondary source. #5, #13/#14 and #15 are three short, independent, secondary sources. That together in my opinion is sufficient as multiple secondary sources for WP:GNG. Additionally, #9 and #12 are two more independent secondary sources that give information about the relevance of the character Caramon outside the novels; so do #10 and #11, which also function as secondary, but possibly not independent sources. This allows for a balanced article with more than "half a paragraph or a definition" and "a few sentences", as required by WP:GNG. The article is then further greatly expanded with the help of the non-independent secondary sources #6 and #7, and especially of primary sources. So the article can well stand on its own, though as a future improvement plot summary on the one hand and analytical + real-world impact on the other could be better balanced. Daranios (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
                • I would agree with you if we had more that one (at least 2) sources of significant coverage, but since there really is only one significant source with all the others being completely trivial (and you don't even contradict that in your analysis), I can't consider it as "significant coverage from multiple sources". As it is, the article violates the WP:GNG notion of "reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view".Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • We still disagree on the interpretation of WP:GNG (for my opinion see my edit from 16:33, 23 January 2013). I DID also contradict that the sources apart from #3/#4 are trivial! I have detailed that in my edit from 20:52, 23 January 2013. You will find "not trivial" there a lot. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • As for the interpretation of GNG, WP:GNG#cite_note-1 (from the passage defining "significant coverage") shows examples of one source being trivial, and another being significant, so I'd say it's pretty clear individual sources each have to provide significant coverage (and I'm merely repeating my argument from January 21st to which you did not satisfyingly reply). Also, consensus at WT:N was that "significant coverage" involves personal opinion/commentary from third parties, not merely the repetition/summarization of primary content or of external data (such as lists of media appearances). Which invalidates most of your assessment regarding source significance. Caramon Majere was also brought up in the discussion and the consensus there was rather in favor of a merge (which means, regarding the present discussion, that the "merge" side now outweighs the "keep" one). You're of course free to disagree, and I'm all willing to discuss, but I think it is no longer constructive for you to keep on disagreeing with a consensus. The proposed merge target seems like a good compromise as no sourced content would disappear, and I don't see any advantage in keeping the article as it is (besides having it just for the sake of it). Unless you have new arguments or sources to provide, I'm going to proceed with the redirection.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1.) Two (potentially three, that is a bit unclear) contributors have stated at WT:N that Caramon Majere should be merged - one of them you. Count that in to all the opinions for keep and merge here, then there is still no clear consensus.

2.) The example you quote at WP:GNG shows a mere mention without more substance about the topic. This is not the case for the sources here, so the dicussion above is still valid.
3.) There is clearly no consensus at WT:N about the question if plot summary counts as significant content or not.
4.) Even if future discussion would decide that sources providing plot summary only are automatically excluded when establishing notablity, only source #5 would no longer contribute to notablity, leaving all the rest as discussed.
Besides, I don't see any advantage in merging the article.
Bottom line is: I do not have a consensus to show for my opinion. Neither do you, Folken de Fanel, have a consensus for your opinion. In light of this, I ask you to leave the article as it is at the moment, unmerged. (Further improving the article itself would of course be great.) If you feel you cannot leave it at that, maybe we should look for a completely uninvolved admin to evaluate all arguments made and draw a conclusion independantly of us two? Daranios (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

the point is that IF the article could actually BE improved, someone would have actually improved it rather than waste all of the precious pixels that have been spewed here claiming some twisted application of the basic and straightforward requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Daranios, well, I consider there is a slight consensus on plot summaries not being significant, given that several of the opposite comments (notably from Warden and Jclemens) outright contradict some points of rules and guidelines. Besides, WP:GNG clearly states that "no original research is needed to extract the content", yet in cases of plot summaries as we have in Caramon Majere, the line between strict plot and so-called "secondary interpretation of plot" is so thin (considering the almost evenly split opinions at WT:N) that OR is needed to make the distinction. There's no way you could get consensus on that. Besides, if 4 to 3 was enough to prevent the article from being merged, 6 to 4 is enough to have it merged (also considering there was a previous consensus to merge last year). The page TRPOD pointed out adds another nail to the coffin of your interpretations. From my estimation, an uninvolved admin would call this either a consensus to merge or a no-consensus, and given my position offers compromise (the retaining of sourced info in a different form) and yours doesn't, a merge is objectively preferable in this kind of situation. Given that we've had more than enough discussion with the participation of uninvolved users at WT:N, without consensus in your favor being reached, and a majority for merging Caramon Majere, I'm proceeding. If you cannot leave it at that, at least avoid revert warring, and if you really think it could make a difference in your favor, feel free to bring an uninvolved admin (after all Jclemens didn't even wait for that before undoing the merge in January).Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Folken, it would have been appropriate of you to request an outside opinion to gauge the consensus here instead of reverting back to merge, as per the suggestion of Darainos. Please kindly restore the article and request an outside opinion. BOZ (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Folken has refused to restore the article and request closure, I will do so. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raistlin is Fistandantilus?

"Raistlin Majere is also known as Fistandantilus, the archmage who originally tried to become a god himself." Someone needs to justify this statement. Unless I remember incorrectly, and this is almost 20 years ago that I read the core books, Raistlin merely owned Fistandatilus's staff. They are not the same character -- James Sumners (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In "The Soulforge" by Margaret Weis (and this is an uber quick summary) it is revealed that Raistlin (R) had made a deal with Fistandantilus (F) to complete the Test, reneged on it, but then F was able to put his "soul" (for lack of a better term at the moment) inside R's body. In the "Dragonlance Legends" series (Weis and Hickman) R goes back in time to learn the rest of F's secrets, and they have a magic battle. While the victor is considered to be R, and goes by R, he actually possesses the memories/abilities of both, and they both had the desire to become a god by destroying Takhisis, so it is unclear which one actually survived the battle. So, with the lack of clear evidence, it is a Schrodinger's Cat situation. By which I mean that, from that point in the storyline, R can be seen as both R AND F, even though they started out as two different people. (Oh, and quick side note, Raistlin's staff was not F's, it was the Staff of Magius) Vyselink (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Wizards of High Sorcery

Like the other articles that have already been merged into this list, Wizards of High Sorcery is about a subject that is insufficiently notable to justify its own article. As such, Wizards of High Sorcery should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Wizards of High Sorcery does not need its own article, but this list is getting quite long, and some of the above mergers got cut down quite a bit: What about splitting off the groups section into its own article such as List of Dragonlance organisations? --Qetuth (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This list has few secondary sources; I would strongly oppose spacing sparsely-sourced content over multiple articles. This list is approximately the same length as List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, which is a featured list. Neelix (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I find the TMM list a long article too, I guess it's just me. --Qetuth (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Are the Wizards of High Sorcery really called WoHS in any sources? Otherwise I would rather do away with the brackets (and maybe include a little bit more about the Wizards' Laws instead). Thanks. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They aren't called WoHS in any sources as far as I know. Feel free to remove the abbreviation and add any information about the laws you can source. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)