Talk:List of Dragonlance novels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass merge[edit]

The consensus in this discussion is to not merge. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A mass merge of about 40 Dragonlance novels articles has been proposed, which includes the following:

The Alien Sea, Amber and Ashes, Amber and Blood, Amber and Iron, Blades of the Tiger, Brothers in Arms (Dragonlance novel), Brothers Majere, Chosen of the Gods, Conundrum (novel), Dark Thane, The Dargonesti, Darkness and Light (novel), Dezra's Quest, Divine Hammer, The Doom Brigade, Draconian Measures, The Dragons of Krynn, Dragons of the Dwarven Depths, Dragons of the Hourglass Mage, Firstborn (Dragonlance), Flint the King, The Forest King, The Gates of Thorbardin, The Inheritance (novel), Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Gnomes, Kendermore, Kindred Spirits (novel), The Legend of Huma, The Lioness (novel), Love and War (Dragonlance), The Magic of Krynn, Prisoner of Haven, The Raistlin Chronicles, Riverwind the Plainsman, The Soulforge, Spirit of the Wind (novel), Stormblade (Dragonlance novel), Tanis, the Shadow Years, Trail of the Black Wyrm, Wanderlust (1991 novel)

Some of these articles currently have independent sources, and some do not. Because so many have been proposed at once, I am requesting a reasonable amount of time to find sources such as book reviews before the merge is carried out. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would you consider reasonable? Some of these articles have existed since 2006. Neelix (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However much time you would consider reasonable to allow us to actively look for sources, considering we have not beeing doing that since 2006 but only just started. BOZ (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A week is standard. If you discover a wealth of sources for a particular article after that time, a new split discussion can be initiated. Neelix (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A week per article for a total of 37 weeks sounds excessive to me. I'd recommend one day per article, giving 37 days for the small team interested in this to continue developing the articles. Personally, I'm not convinced that most of these novels are notable enough that they need more than a paragraph or two of description on this page or a page like it. But I'm willing to be convinced to the contrary if high quality articles can be developed. Justin Bacon (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the merge tag from Dragons of the Dwarven Depths, as it now has significant coverage from multiple third party sources. —Torchiest talkedits 03:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm restoring the tag until there's a consensus on the presence of "significant coverage from multiple third party sources", because discussion never hurts. Though source #3 is a good start, I'm not convinced at all by sources #1 and #2, which are basically reviewing the audiobook narrator's performance and are not saying a single word about the novel itself (except plot summary in #1, which is insufficient for notability). #3 cannot support the article all by itself, so there's nothing wrong in keeping the tag and looking for more sources while we discuss the merge. Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look at WP:BRD. Neelix boldly tagged the article, I reverted after adding sources, and you failed to engage in the discussion step, but instead reverted me. In the meantime, I have added a fourth source to the article, with more in-depth coverage. —Torchiest talkedits 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD, whatever its merits, is an essay, as such it can't supercede WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. Once a discussion is started, you let it unfold all the way to the end and see what happens. That how WP works. Maybe the consensus will be that this article deserves to be a stand-alone, who knows ? Removing the merge tag would just cheat people that don't necessarily share your views out of their say on the subject. And you say that I failed to engage in discussion ? Please. We're here precisely to discuss, not to hide possible topics of discussion. If you have anything more to say about my restoration of the tag, please take it to WP:ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not look for some sources while you're online? I am constantly amazed at how much effort you put into getting content deleted. Channel some of that energy into building the encyclopedia. —Torchiest talkedits 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could also tell you to stop wasting your time on fancruft that will eventually get deleted or merged one day instead of working on topics with a real encyclopedical value, but then you'd tell me that we use the time we willingly spend on Wikipedia the way we want and no one has any business telling anyone else what to do on WP. And you'd be right. So I'll leave it at that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. "Some of these articles have sources, and some do not". Some are comprehensive, some are a single sentence. This entire merge seems arbitrary, and there is no compelling reason for most of them. There are already 2 reasons to keep the majority of the articles: They were written by a very well-known author (Weis or Hickman) and they take place in a very well-known setting (Dragonlance). There are no doubt many reviews out there. Some of these books have probably been on the NYT best-seller list. Which ones? we don't know - merge them all anyway...? This is also a poor choice of merger target. List of Dragonlance novels?? How about "Bibliography of Margaret Weis"? or Margaret Weis? How about merging them into the series name ie The Dark Disciple for Amber and Ashes, Amber and Iron, and Amber and Blood? It is not that I'm opposed to merges, far from it, but this mass one seems ill-considered.  The Steve  01:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a notice was left at Wikiproject Novels about this. I clicked on three or four random titles from the list above and found pages that basically have infoboxes and not much else. At lease one had empty sections that were tagged. If the random sampling I looked at is representative of the entire suite of articles, then they should be deleted and a Bibliograpy of Dragonlance page created that has the titles and the date published. If and when (if ever) more information become available for the individual titles they might merit their own pages. At this point, I don't think they do given the paucity of information on these pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is completely obnoxious to suddenly demand that one rather small project drop everything they are doing to source 40 articles to your satisfaction or you will merge them within a week. Everyone here is a volunteer and likely has things they do outside of Wikipedia. I suggest giving at least 2-3 weeks to allow people time to find good sources instead of rushing things. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge for now Has an adequate search been made for reviews in sources dealing with this kind of fiction? The merge proposal seems to be on the basis that none are likely to be found, but which sources have been checked? I see BOZ is has added some. Of those he mentioned, some have suitably short plot sections, some are excessive. This would indicate to me that the proposal to move the merge them all may have been made without adequate consideration of each individual article. I do not work on this genre of fiction, but I work in areas where there can be a large number of unnecessary daughter articles, and when appropriate, I propose merges, but when I do, I propose them one at a time, and discuss each of them on its individual merits as a stand alone article. imo, 90% of the time a merge or deletion of a large number of related articles is proposed, the check on the individual articles is invalid (there are exceptions, such as when they are all total spam, or vandalism, or copyvio, but even when all written by a banned editor, most adequate discussions have rescued at least some of them.
In particular, there are often alternatives: in this case, there seem to be subseries of the works. Since within a subseries the plot would probably be more understandable if they were written together as a single article, an intermediate stage of merge would seem possible.
There are other considerations. (1) A substantial review is usually interpreted here as anything more than a mere listing. Once a review has been suggested, and a quotation from it shows there is critical comment in it, I think the burden would be on anyone who says that it is not sufficient. (2) are some of them in you opinion relatively more important than others? Sometimes it is true in such series, sometimes they are all about the same importance. (3) One of the usual objections to a merge is that the material ends up reduced to a mere list, without actually retaining the material in the original articles. Agreed that some of the sections are excessive, would you agree to retain the material in articles of the nature of Dragons of the Hourglass Mage or is it your intent to make a list with a sentence or two only about each of them? One of the reasons I have almost always supported separate articles for fictional works is the destructive nature of the merges. The reasons given for whether they meet the technical NBOOKS requirements are rarely the point--the point is that those making the merges regard the material as not worth including. I notice a comment above to that extent, where one editor suggests to another that this is not worth working on. This is imo a destructive attitude entirely--that we each of us have different interests is what builds the encyclopedia, I have repeatedly been struck that people working on some of the most substantial topics often also work on some favorite music or fiction or sport or type of biography that I would regard as trivial. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple secondary sources are required, so one review is not sufficient. Merging is not the same as deleting; a merged list clarifies what is important and removes the dross. Many of the original authors have doubtless grown up and will now be able to appreciate the austere beauty of the shorter treatments of each book. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Articles lists[edit]

To try to make this a little easier, here are two lists. The first is a list of articles with no independent sources yet. The second is those with at least one. Please move articles from the top to the bottom list as they get sourced. That will make it more straightforward to merge completely unsourced articles and discuss the remaining ones, with hopefully less overall clutter. It should also cut down on time wasted looking at already sourced articles. —Torchiest talkedits 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero independent sources[edit]

The Alien Sea, Amber and Ashes, Amber and Blood, Amber and Iron, Blades of the Tiger, Brothers in Arms (Dragonlance novel), Brothers Majere, Chosen of the Gods, Dark Thane, Darkness and Light (novel), Dezra's Quest, Divine Hammer, The Doom Brigade, Draconian Measures, The Dragons of Krynn, Firstborn (Dragonlance), Flint the King, The Forest King, The Gates of Thorbardin, The Inheritance (novel), Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Gnomes, Kendermore, Kindred Spirits (novel), Love and War (Dragonlance), The Raistlin Chronicles, Riverwind the Plainsman, The Soulforge, Spirit of the Wind (novel), Stormblade (Dragonlance novel), Tanis, the Shadow Years, Trail of the Black Wyrm

At least one independent source[edit]

Conundrum (novel), The Dargonesti, Dragons of the Dwarven Depths, Dragons of the Hourglass Mage, The Legend of Huma, The Lioness (novel), The Magic of Krynn, Prisoner of Haven, Wanderlust (1991 novel)

What to do next[edit]

OK, I have been adding sources when I find them, and thinking about how to proceed.

I don't feel that any of those above should be redirected without consensus to do so.

As far as other merges go, I have been considering these.

I am thinking about what else could be merged and where. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That nicely clumps together half a dozen articles, which puts us about halfway through the list. —Torchiest talkedits 19:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only have articles for the first two novels in that sextet right now though. —Torchiest talkedits 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—Torchiest talkedits 19:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to mention that a lot of these articles are discussed in Dragon magazine articles, as I found out while looking at the DL character articles; while I know this does not really add to notability, often enough there are comments from the authors and other background info that you might not find anywhere else, so it is worthwhile to check. I want to try to start this tonight if I have the time and opportunity, although it could easily have to wait until tomorrow or over the weekend. BOZ (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaves of the Last Home should get a different comment. It has nothing to do with the RPGs. It's a collection of miscellaneous things related to the setting. These kinds of collections are common and are often found in series with no relationship to RPGs. It might even belong as a separate section at the end since, while relevant, they're not actually novels as the page title indicates.

Anyone familiar with these books care to add them to this list?[edit]

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance novels#Novels[edit]

Hello.

My edit was reverted. One week ago, I wrote to the contributor who reverted it, but I received no answer. Let us talk about it here.

It could be my mobile or the mobile browser I use, but I completely disagree on his/her statement "makes it more accessible (especially on mobile)".

Anyway, years ago I created a page titled "List of Dragonlance novels by author", because the books by the same author often have consistency (e.g. Richard Knaak is the author of all the stories of Kaz the Minotaur) and one author usually has a consistent writing style. The page was deleted when the main "List of Dragonlance novels" was turned into a sortable table. Indeed, if you can sort one, single table by author, the page "List of Dragonlance novels by author" becomes redundant.

On the other hand, splitting the table into decades means forcing a sorting order by publication year. In this case, the page "List of Dragonlance novels by author" should be restored.

(By the way, what does "rvt" mean? I found 27 meanings for it on abbreviations.com, and none fits.)

This is my point of view, I assure you I am in good faith, and I am sure your points of view take into account something that did not occur to me. I will gladly read your opinions.

If I get no answer in 10 days or so, I will restore my edit. --Abacos (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rvt means revert. Your explanation certainly makes sense. I would go with the single sortable table unless someone comes up with strong counter agrument in the next 10 days. Deagol2 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to discuss the revert with User:Sariel Xilo. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, I did write to Sariel Xilo two weeks ago, but I am still waiting for an answer.
Deagol2, I apologize, I know that "the next 10 days" sounds like an ultimatum, but in some talks no answer is given over months or years. --Abacos (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. 10 days is very reasonable. Deagol2 (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Thanks for the flag! @Abacos: You left a message on my talk page on July 5 (not 2 weeks ago) & I did flag on my talk that I was going to be delayed in responding (due to some IRL stuff). While I wasn't involved in the PROD of List of Dragonlance novels by author, I do agree that we don't need two lists that are basically different versions of the same content. I believe that sorting by date & dividing by decade makes it more accessible for a reader and it is fairly common to have lists of content broken up by header (The chronological example MOS:LISTORG gives is List of prime ministers of Belarus). The other organizational direction is to get rid of the table entirely and organize it by series (see List of Forgotten Realms novels). Additionally, we could ask other editors for their thoughts by pinging the relevant projects (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sariel Xilo. You are right about the dates, I got confused with something else. Sorry!
Back to the subject, can you explain how splitting up this table (thus preventing sorting) makes the data more accessible? I do not see that. I agree that in some cases, chronological order is the only sensible order (e.g. a list of prime ministers), but the Dragonlance novels list is different.
In my humble opinion, sorting by author is what is relevant (e.g. Michael Williams wrote a trilogy of Dragonlance novels featuring the same characters, but published in three different "series" over two different decades; same for many other Dragonlance authors). In general, a single sortable table of Dragonlance novels allows for more accessibility because it allows each reader to organize it according to his/her own current needs. Still in my personal opinion, Dragonlance "series" often are just umbrella-names for groups of unrelated novels that happened to be ready at the same time. --Abacos (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Dragonlance_novels&oldid=1213539824"