Jump to content

Talk:Paladine

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

How are we on notability?

[edit]

It's been a couple of weeks, we've got a literary reference and two MUDs. Is that enough? Wikipedia requires notability, not reality-changing influence... just notability. So, what say you? Padillah (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking just for myself, I'd still like to see at least one other reference. I haven't been able to look much over the last couple of weeks, as the paper-based research requires me to leave the computer, but I'll keep looking around and see if I can find something. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the Dragonlance canon, I see no evidence of notability. Would it not be more approriate to discuss merger of this article with Dragonlance? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Dalamori has pointed out, we have a movie (not produced by WoC), two MUDs, and a literary reference. Has this character changed the way we view film today? No. Are they notable enough to warrant a 20k article in WP? Yeah, I think so. I have to ask, why are the above not sufficient? Padillah (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support notability. Dalamori (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment was probably overly brief: We have a movie, two muds, a scholarly literary reference, and a whole host of first party sources (Which _ARE_ allowed for the purposes of establishing notability, as per WP:V. See above for my post containing the relevant section. ) In the stubborn absence of any cogent arguments to the contrary, I feel this article meets the standards for notability by a wide margin. Dalamori (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Dalmori. I think that there's too much of a push for notability at the moment, but my main interest here is to try and make sure that there's enough on Paladine to survive an AfD if one comes up, and, ideally, to put the article beyond doubt. The notability guidelines really insist on multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable third-party sources. The MUDs are interesting, but they don't really speak to notability, and the film is a primary source. WP:V permits the use of primary sources (as it should), but that is in regard to verifiability, not notability. So there are only two third-party reliable sources, and only one is very good. That makes it borderline, and I'm hoping to get it beyond borderline. :) WP:Fiction is interesting at the moment, but I wouldn't guarantee that that it will end up supporting this sort of article, as the focus right now is on spin-out lists. All of that is different to the actual notability of the subject. I would happily argue that Paladine is notable outside of Wikipedia's requirements. Unfortunately, the trick is to show that it is notable in Wikipedia's terms, and that's where the challenge lies. Personally, I think all that is needed is time - a good reference or two will turn up. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am only asking this to get a handle on "Notability", I'm not trying to argue one way or the other - yet. Why would the movie be considered a primary source? It's not produced by WoC, it's produced by Commotion Pictures, Toonz Animation India, and Witox. It may be licensed by WoC but I wouldn't think that would make it a primary source. And why don't the MUDs speak to notability? They are examples of people noting the character out-universe. I thought the notability criteria was at least a little tempered by the frame of reference that someone "noting" the subject is the very definition of notability. This is a pet peeve of mine, the moving and shifting face of Notability. I read editors all the time citing that all you have to do is provide notability, but when you do it turns out that's "not notable enough". No where in WP:N does it raise the question of how notable, just that the subject is notable. The object of the coverage has to be the subject in question, but the "importance" of the coverage is never an issue. Simply that the coverage is reliable, deals directly with the subject at hand, and is independent of the subject. So why aren't direct mentions in non-WoC videogames sufficient for notability? Padillah (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only comment on my impressions based on what I've been witnessing in the delete discussions and talk pages like this one. As an aside, though, I strongly disagree with the notability requirements and how they are interpreted. But I'm looking at what it takes to get an article through them, not whether or not I agree with them. :) The Paladine article is about a character. Therefore, real-world notability is determined, (again according to what I see in Wikipedia), on the discussion of the character. The movie has an incidence of the character, but isn't a discussion of it, as are the MUDs. (MUDs are likely to be problematic anyway). The strict interpretation being used is that the character needs to have been discussed in multiple (read "at least two") independent (thus nothing by WotC will count) reliable sources (fan sites are out), and that the discussion has to be non-trivial (a mention of the character in passing won't be enough). This doesn't mean that it will be deleted if it fails these - I've seen a number of articles survive (just) without meeting the strict interpretation, but then I've also seen articles get deleted (or, more often, redirected/merged) even when they did meet it. Significantly, this is a different definition of the term "notable" than is in common usage in the real world. :) Maybe someone else will have a different answer for you, though. - Bilby (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the movie and MUDs are out because they don't "discuss" the character. And we can't use anything from a fan. And we can't use anything from WotC. We can stop now. I see no situation where someone that is not a fan would discuss Dragonlance as a whole much less a single character. I honestly think these are absurd conditions to live up to. There are what, maybe four characters in the entire genre of fiction that have had "real-world impact". Holden Caulfield doesn't qualify. Rambo doesn't qualify. The Terminator, arguably one of the most referenced characters in fiction, doesn't qualify. This is futile. Padillah (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that The Terminator is just one character in a notable film, rather than being a notable character per se, depending on your point of view. There is indeed a seperate spinoff article for Terminator (character concept), but like this article, it does not cite any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of the fictional concept. I would argue this is because the character is what makes the film and their sequels notable, but the Terminator is not a notable character per se. Applying this argument to Paladine, I would say that his character may contribute to the notability of the books in which he features, but he does not automatically inherit notability from the books. I think you will disagree with this viewpoint, but in fairness to me and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, you must provide evidence in the form of real-world content, context and analysis referenced from reliable secondary sources to justify your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to try and change anyone's mind, I find I am not what I once was for exercises in futility. I don't understand the circularity of your logic (The character made the movies notable but the character isn't notable... Wouldn't the character be notable in their ability to make the movie notable?) but I also concede this isn't the place to argue this issue. I understand the technicalities of the restriction and now must find a way to operate within them. Padillah (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while I understand your frustration, you're perhaps reading things too literally. By "fan" I'm referring mostly to "fan sites" - self-published websites by fans discussing the character. So if you find a blog which says "I thought Paladine was the best of the Dragonlance characters" that may be useful as a primary source, but that won't be any good for notability. However, a review published in a third-party magazine, or a discussion in a book by a different publisher, or anything along those lines counts. That holds even if the reviewer or author is a fan of the books - all that matters is that a third party publication was willing to publish the material. Based on what I've found before, I don't see any reason why Paladine's notability can't be established to current Wikipedia standards - the difficulty is simply that online sources don't seem to be enough (And by enough I simply mean that I haven't found the final perfect reference online). But the series is very popular, the character is popular, experts in the field tell me that the character is notable, and I know that the series is discussed in print, so once I work out where to look it should all be good. As an aside, my problem with notability is that the current standards refer only to a particular type of notability, and while most of the time this type can be established by good researchers, it is often not the best type of notability for the topic, and ignores other issues. But it is also the easiest for non-experts to test, hence its acceptance. - Bilby (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked the In-universe tag.

[edit]

We now have a discussion of character background, notes about his appearances in movies, and a discussion about how he compares to other fictional characters. I feel this provides enough real-world perspective to justify removing the in-universe tag. So, I was bold and nuked it, I hope you all agree with my edit. Dalamori (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When this article was tagged, it had crap like "When the rest of the gods returned to Krynn, they realized that Takhisis had gone too far". Now all this in universe padding has been cleanedup, and the content is much more real-world, this article is starting to look respectable. Good work.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples?

[edit]

Please forgive my ignorance, but as I get more involved in Wikipedia, I'm having trouble understanding the notability tag as it relates to fantasy characters. I keep seeing these notability tags everywhere on these types of pages. If it's not too much trouble, can someone (hopefully Gavin or Jack) please give me an example of a supporting character in a fantasy novel that IS notable? I believe Padillah was on to something: the "real-world" impact of most fictional characters is going to be quite limited" especially as it relates to fictional characters in a fantasy/adventure novel. After all, why would a non-fantasy-related publication (since that appears to be what we're looking for) make any mention of a supporting character in a fantasy novel, let alone a non-trivial mention? Skiguy330 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say first that it is relatively difficult to provide evidence that a fictional character is notable outside of the media (book, movie or game) in which the character is presented, and this is a very big hurdle which no Dragonlance article has been able to surmount. In fact the Dragonlance books are themselves of unproven notability, as outside the authors and publishers, there is very little or no reliable sources cited in any of these articles.
I had a look at some of the articles on characters from the well-known Lord of the Rings cycle, and suprisingly virtually none of them cite any evidence from reliable secondary sources of the characters notability per se, with the exception of Gandalf. His origins and development are the subject of several essays, articles, journals and books that provide evidence of the character's notability which is independent of the books, films and games in which he features.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out two things (Gavin, your POV is showing) - 1) You are saying that even though four of the Dragonlance books have appeared on the NYT Best Sellers list they still don't qualify as notable? Christ! What is notable for you, man? This screams "NEVER GOING TO ACCEPT THIS MATERIAL!!!!" And 2) So, of all the characters in arguably the single most popular and impactful fiction in history, only ONE character is notable? That's it? Just the one character? Wow, the impossibility of arguing with you just hit home for me. I have to question whether you feel the Holy Bible would be notable enough for WP. Padillah (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's calm down. If I understand correctly, I believe what Gavin was saying is that they don't provide evidence of notability, not that they aren't notable. Thanks for the example Gavin. That at least gives me a frame of reference for what the article needs. Skiguy330 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome, Skiguy330, to what I assure you, is a very complex discussion regarding the notability of Paladine. Despite Gavin's assurances to the contrary, allow me to refer you to WP:V, which I quoted above (not that I would blame you for having skipped such a long, and dry, block of text). There, you will discover that reliable secondary sources, which are REQUIRED for verifying factual content, are NOT required for the establishment of notability. Gavin is well aware of this as well, owing to our discussions on Talk:Reorx, and I anticipate a swift move to a more appropriate tag in this article. Dalamori (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swift Moves will have to wait. There is apparently a mediation in progress, and I'm unsure if nuking the notability tag here would create trouble. Therefore, I am content to wait a bit, and give time for other things to happen in the meantime. Dalamori (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated.  :) In the meantime, you can watch how things are going with our work on Kender. BOZ (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Does anyone know where James Wyatt stands in terms of expertise? There's a really nice piece he's published that would be great for the article, but it is self-published. Therefore it could only be of value as an RS if he is an established expert in the field. Given his background I thought it might be, but it wasn't clear to me either way. - Bilby (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one establish that somebody is an established expert in a field? :) BOZ (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. :) Hence my dilemma. (At least for this field - I'd be better at it in others). But if he is an established expert, then it would be a great addition. If it helps, I gather he is recognized as a game designer and is a Reverend, and used to be involved in the old "D&D will lead children to Satan" debates. I suppose if I have to it could become a primary source, but then I have to be much more careful with the application. - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically it's not a blog, but yes, it is self-published. :) The query is simply whether or not he is also an expert in the field. I'm inclined towards saying that he isn't enough of an expert, but you never know. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? He's an employee of WotC and that makes him a primary source. Padillah (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So at best he might still be an expert, but it doesn't help with notability. Oh well - it was worth a shot. Thanks. I'll keep digging around. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling him a "blogger" is like saying Stephen King is a blogger. Sure they both keep blogs, but above and beyond that they are both writers. This is self-published yes and it can't be used by itself to establish notability. Wyatt though is an expert in this subject with a couple of decades and a few dozen publications and an industry standard award (Origins) to back up his opinion. And on this topic in particular (religion and D&D) he can back it up with the academic credentials. That also makes him an expert. Web Warlock (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without evidence of this, it is hard to take your assertion seriously. He seems to be an expert in "The Dynamics of Christian Boundaries in Roman Alexandria". Has he published an academic paper on Role-Playing Games that has been peer reviewed? Now that would make him an expert. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but he has recieved several industry awards for recognition and held a job in the industry for over 8 years. What are the criteria for being considered an expert? Or are there any? Padillah (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be fair Web Warlock. WP:NPA, huh? Padillah (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to be civil when he is such a dick. Web Warlock (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TMAI Padillah (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a Master's of Divinity as well as having worked as both a minister and a game designer, and I am requesting a copy of his Master's thesis via inter-library loan. What exactly is YOUR Master's degree in? Oh that's right you don't have any advanced degrees. So why should we listen to your opinion on these issues at all? Web Warlock (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Gavin. You didn't answer my question. What are the criteria for being considered an expert? Where do you get the authority to declare someone not an expert? What are we basing the determination of expert on? And why does he need to be an expert? Is publishing a paper that's been peer reviewed your singular criteria? Why? Does that mean that after 15 years of working in the industry I'm not an expert? What is your criteria and where did you get it? Padillah (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying he is not an expert - someone of this education and experience probably is, but I don't have any evidence to support my view. However, it is Webwarlock who is making the claim, you should ask him what criteria he is using. I, like you, am merely questioning what evidence is Webwarlock using to base his claim that he is an expert, because nowhere on James Wyatt's does he himself make such a claim, to his credit. Without evidence, it is hard to take Webwarlock assertion seriously. I fear Webwarlock has dug himself into a hole in which he is now angrily attempting to bury himself.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding the reference, Gavin. That helped a lot. Actually, I was more concerned about his expertise in terms of religious studies - I'm not exactly experienced with Reverends, but I was concerned that just being a Reverend made you no more of an expert in theology than being a programmer necessarily makes you an expert in programming. But having a Masters is good - I'd rather a PhD, obviously, but that is more than I expected. In terms of expertise in roleplaying, the Origins awards and his experience designing for Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance seems good, so I was already reasonably happy with that side. I'm still wary about using him, though, so I'll hold off for a bit, as I don;t think we should use a reference until we're completely comfortable that it can be used appropriately. - Bilby (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole question of "expertise" is the problem. Whatever contribution he is being called on to make should simply be represented as having come from someone with his experience. E.g., "There is no harm in eating tomatoes from Texas" said Fred Finkle, head of the CDC. Simply add the contribution and cite it as having come from "J. Wyatt, winner of the Origins award". There is no need to esablish his level of expertise. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but then it would be nothing more than a person's opinion. We can use him as a reliable source - suggesting that it is more than a random opinion - if either his thoughts are published in a reliable source, or if it is shown that he is enough of an expert that his self-published materials can be taken to be reliable. I was hoping to use it as more than an opinion, as it is a good issue to cover in the article. - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent of Mina Claim

[edit]

Someone added a claim that Mina was the daughter of Paladine and Mishakal, saying that this fact was "recently revealed". I cleaned up the language to be more encyclopedic, and added a {{Fact}} tag. I was aware that this was a popular theory among fans, but was not aware of any official or definitive statement having been made to that effect. Can anyone back this up, or should we remove this claim? Dalamori (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since nobody replied, I removed the claim about Mina's parentage. I assume if someone comes along with something to support the claim, it can always be re-added later. Dalamori (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing?

[edit]

From the article:

"Paladine is a fictional major deity from the Dragonlance fantasy series of novels and role playing games, originally published by TSR, Inc. and later by Sovereign Press under the d20 Open Gaming License developed by Wizards of the Coast[1]."

There's no such thing as the "d20 Open Gaming License". There's the d20 System Trademark License (d20 STL) and the similar yet completely seperate Open Gaming License (OGL). The Dragonlance RPG material published by Sovereign Press was under an official license from Wizards of the Coast, not the d20 STL or the OGL. WotC owns the Dragonlance trademarks. The d20 STL and OGL are open licenses in the respect that they require (or required, in the case of the d20 STL) no prior agreement with WotC to publish content under them, and they very explicitly prohibit use of what WotC calls "product identity". 24.22.81.217 (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paladine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paladine&oldid=1213540769"