Talk:Characters in the Inheritance cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Inheritance Cycle, a project to systematically present information on the Inheritance Cycle and related articles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy To-do:

Contents

[edit] Redirects

- giggles uncontrollably. - Why are there so many redirects? I was looking at the Brom section, and it has redirections to 'hill', 'sandstone', 'tomb', 'time', etc. I mean, what's the actual point?

They aren't called redirects. An article has a redirect if, when you go to the article, it sends you somewhere else. Anyway, these are called internal links. As in, they link to another article inside of Wikipedia. If words like those are linked though, that is definitely excessive. Words that people might not recognize or may want to know more about should be linked, but not "hill" and such. You're more than welcome to remove them if you'd like. --pIrish talk, contribs 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Brain went dead for a moment there. My fault. I'm also disturbed by how unsourced this is. I have no recollection of half of the stuff the article claims, specifically the characters' pasts.
Oh, you're not the only one. It is terribly unsourced. I won't edit anything though since I haven't yet read the second book, Eldest, and I wouldn't know what's true and what's not. --pIrish talk, contribs 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this has no clue what they're doing. They keep making internal links to the same thing over and over and over again, and keeps saying what Tronjheim is, etc. I cleaned up a bit, but I'm not bothering with the rest.
The problem is that someone keeps copy/pasting all the character articles before redirecting them here and not cleaning them up at all when they make the change. They've copied and pasted every little bit including infoboxes, category links, internal links, etc. I've cleared out the infoboxes and category links as well as add headers to the sections because they were all just plopped into the middle of the huge list without getting a section header added to it. It's rather frustrating. --pIrish talk, contribs 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed standard for this page

Okay, I'd like to propose a standard for this page.

  1. This page should be divided into several geographical regions, so as to best match with the Alagaësia page as possible. Also included should be a section for main characters, which I would define to be Eragon, Arya, Roran, Murtagh, Saphira, and Brom.
  2. There can also be some distinctions made to races, Dragons should almost certainly be separated from their geographical regions, and other similar things might be done as well.
  3. If one of the sections becomes unduly large, it should be sorted as appropriate (Ie, if there are more than 5 people from Cavahall, perhaps a new section should be created for people from that town, etc.)
  4. They should be grouped so that there are sections of about 5-10 people per category, unless there's an obvious reason why there should be more, or it is the most abstract that one could reasonably do.
  5. Any new character should be added to this page first.
  6. If there is a family (For instance, Horst), the family can be considered together, unless one plays a very signifigant role (For instance, Roran/Eragon definitely should be different, Nasuda/Ajihad, etc.)
  7. If any one section grows to be longer than 3 good paragraphs, then that person should be given their own page, and the result on this page summarized. The summary should be 2 paragraphs, 3 at the most.
  8. For every entry included here that has at least one good paragraph of information, a link on a disambiguation page or redirect should be made, to the appropriate section. They should not just link to the top of the page.
  9. If this page ever becomes too large as a whole, then it should be divided, according to the large regions where each character lives. Major characters would most likely only appear in their own pages, and not on this list of characters.

I would like to have any questions about this policy, and see if it should give some guidance to help make the character organization more clear. Tuvas 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made alot of changes to the article, I hope now it's alot more organized, and easier to find the person, and read about similar people. The next step is to continue summarizing the major characters. There probably should be more added to the two that I've already done, but, well, I can only do so much at a time... I think we should recreate all of the major characters pages, and simply have a summary on the main page. These would include: Durza, Roran, Nasuada, Murtagh, The Ra'Zac, possibly Oromis, and Saphira for sure. The summaries should be a bit longer than the ones that I did, I was just in too much of a hurry to do a really decent job.

Still needing to be added to the page are Eragon and Galbatorix, under the major characters section. Tuvas 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters missing

I think a lot of characters are missing from this article. I can't even find Elva. Could someone fix this? Shrewpelt 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) who is the lady-smith in Du Weldinvarden that made the swords for the Dragon Riders? Jestt 01:25 8 Oct. 2007

Her name is Rhunön. I think she should at the very least be mentioned in here, although it might not hurt to wait and see if we get more background on her in the next book. Could somebody please do that?Doin'Huh3.5 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry but...

this article is terrible. There is no clear distinction as to if there are any other articles on the characters. Quite honestly, this needs a bulldozer. Does anyone think so too? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are no articles on the individual characters anymore. The entries could use some work, and some characters can be cut altogether. But it's not really terrible. — i said 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are suggesting we split the article up into lots of smaller articles, one for each character, then no. That used to be the case, but they were merged together as they didn't do anything useful as single pages. If anything, it was just more work as we'd have to watch each individual page for vandalism. Una LagunaTalk 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i know this is reeeeeeeeally late, but....No, that wasn't what i meant, i meant, there ARE other articles for some characters, but you'd never know it looking at this. It also has a lot of redirects to the same page its on. Frankly, thats not even slightly useful --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, I've got a suggestion for everyone. It's simple. The same thing they have on Bleach. It's called, a character page, that gives a quick description of each character in the book. Then, links to their pages. I know...scary thought indeed. But you know. You still haven't given a valid argument why they should have been deleted in the first place. It makes no sense, and I'm studying calculus...seriously, that makes more sense that the decision to nuke the character pages. Geez, whose bright idea what that? Whoever it was, get a checkup, your missing a few components. Seriously, THE INFORMATION IS USEFUL. I'VE WRITTEN PAPERS IN HIGH SCHOOL THAT I USED TONS OF THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM THE CHARACTER PAGES FOR...seriously...talk about forgetting your brain on the bedstand...Dragoon91786 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your uncivil attitude. Calm down, and comment on edits, not editors. Una LagunaTalk 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The removal of these pages was discussed at Talk:Eragon#Major Cleanup. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Most, if not all of the articles deleted were unsourced and failed to provide real-world information which satisfied the notability criteria to justify an entire article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and if it was then lots more "useful" information would be included, but it isn't for obvious reasons. Please read WP:NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This is what the article failed to address.
If you still want access to the information, most of it is still here. Instead of deleting the articles outright, many of them were replaced with redirects, meaning that the article histories remain. For example, if I wanted to access the article on Saphira I'd go here and look at the history. ?redirect=no is a useful tool. Una LagunaTalk 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has nothing to do with civility, it comes down to a rational understanding of the value of a piece of information. While the information is still accessible, it is not for the average user. Not many people use the histories to look back and check for previous edits. I thought the idea here was the furtherance of a collective knowledge through an open source medium? Or has the original goal of wikipedia changed since I first started using it back in 2001? If so it's a sad thing.

As for information being uncited I can understand that point, however I still thoroughly disagree with the current position of the terms. I can't believe this site has changed so much since I started using it my Freshman year in high school. As for my opinion of whoever is the final say in this section of wiki, I have the right to cite my opinion. Perhaps you might think my language was a bit harsh, but I did not threaten, nor verbally abuse the person. I admit, my temper got a little heated after reading some of the comments by others. But that is understandable. I am a learned individual who feels passionately about this subject. I doubt I am the only person to voice his or her opinion in a way that is heated...I'm not going to apologize for those views. Perhaps I am looking at too small a picture and wikipedia has in fact detracted from the original goals I understood when I started using this site, if that truly is the case I really feel we've lost something. Yes, as you pointed out articles having real world implications are nice, but wikipedia was originally a collection of information on a variety of topics that were accessible by the masses, not just someone's opinion of what is currently affecting the world. If I want to read opinions I'll watch FOX, CNN, or the BBC. This was intended, originally, from what I signed, and understood to be, as a site dedicated to allowing people access to information on a variety of topic, user created, edited by the masses, and open source (available to everyone for free). If one of the committee's changed that view at some point it really is a shocking and disheartening fact. This site had some great intentions at the beginning, but it seems that those values and intentions have lead to hell as they all inevitably do...

As for my opinions, they remain unchanged...and you still haven't changed my opinion. I will however apologize if my language offended you. It was unintentional. I was simply voicing a strong opinion that I adamantly oppose the current decision making process of wiki in this area. I have freedom of speech in this country, or did that also change while I've been in school? And no...just because this is a website does not change that, delete my comments, erase my account, I still have the right to speak my mind. If people think otherwise check Article I of the Bill of Rights, you might find it interesting.Dragoon91786 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
As you haven't given any specific points relating to this article, I'll point you at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. These policies describe why the characters from the Inheritance Cycle don't have their own articles. And as they're considered policy, if you have a problem with them you should argue why there are problems with them at the relevant talk page. Una LagunaTalk 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arya

This looks like it was just a copy-and-paste job. I removed the original research (the real-world and similarities sections), and cleaned up the headings, but it still needs to be condensed to a more manageable size. Una LagunaTalk 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murtagh

The poor guy used to have his own article, right? I REMEMBER THIS KINDA STUFF!!!!!!

I copied the whole thing into Word on my computer. And...and... now it's gone!! *sobbing wildly*

I WANT HIS ARTICLE BACK!

--Éowyn Alestrii 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed as one character doesn't merit their own article. As it was, there were practically no sources beyond primary sources (as in, the books and films), giving it no out-of-universe information. This is a no-no for Wikipedia articles. The current entry on this page goes into about as much depth as you'd need to for an encyclopedia entry. If you can expand it with useful, notable content to the extent that it needs its own article, then go ahead, although I don't think that's likely. The same arguments apply to all other major characters (Brom, Arya, etc). Una LagunaTalk 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that if Murtagh doesn't have an artical, Eragon shouldn't. Murtagh has done as much if not more than Eragon (plus he doesn't faint after every battle...). Also, exceptions are commonly made to the "policies". CP must have said a few things about Murtagh, which is out-of-universe information. Jazz Band Member 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Pfft haha it doesn't even need to be a battle for Eragon to faint *snort*. But yeah I deffently thinks Murtagh should have his own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.0.128 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your own personal opinion on which character has done more does not decide which characters need their own article. And more importantly, what useful, encyclopedic content would be included in a full-blown article which couldn't be included in a section of this page? Una LagunaTalk 07:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree thoroughly. The reason behind wikipedia is an encyclopedia, is it not? Then why include information relating to the characters at all. Information gleamed from books is often all we have about characters. The articles about characters is about who they are. Information regarding them that can be useful to people. For instance, if I was writing a college paper about the book, instead of having to browse through all of the book to find specific sections relating to who, say Eragon is, I could look it up on Wiki. I could also find outside information that people have posted. If you followed that hard fast rule, 90% of HP, LOTRs, and Star Wars would be deleted, but it's here because we consider it "valuable information", regardless of whether it comes from the book or not. If this was the case, why else would we have characters, other information, etc.? If all of this is inworld info, why have wiki articles at all about fandom? It isn't useful accept to fans. Shouldn't we then just delete all of it?

I'm a fan, but certainly not an obsessed one. I wrote a paper in high school about Eragon and used the information present in one of the old Wiki articles about Murtagh, you know, ERAGON'S BROTHER...Come on people, that's going to have big implications in both book three and four...so, basic information is important. This isn't Shannara where you have a book comprising every single character, major place, battle, event, etc. That's what wiki's for. We use this as an encyclopedia of fandom. Not as a place for annoyed admins to run amuck. Just because it's inworld doesn't disprove the information's value. It's useful information. If you are going to start deleting articles because it's purely inworld, take that deleting finger and move it to some of the articles where you'll get deleted, like LOTRS or HP...or Star Trek/Star Wars and see what happens...you'll get so much backlash you wouldn't imagine. Most of the characters in wiki are those that you see once, in one small passage, etc. They are of vague reference. And only super and mega fans care enough about to post. Don't go telling me that a major character is being deleted just because the information about him is placed purly in inworld. That's a load of horse manure. Plus, with only two books in the series out, how can you expect more info...Paolini has been on several book tours. He doesn't talk a lot about the series because HE IS A MEGA FAN...Do you honestly think he doesn't know what happens when he starts talking? He releases information via his publisher. His recent video announcement was poised directly at super and mega fans. Fans who like myself actually read the emails we are sent by the publisher about what's happening in the universe, people who read the articles he writes monthly.

As for the character of Murtagh, I have not seen a single bit of solitary evidence disproving the importance of giving him his own page. His character continues to become more important with each book released. Paolini recently hinted at his importance, along with Eragon's cousin. I mean they had a fricking Star Wars, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, "I am your father..." moment...last time I check that usually signified a great deal of importance in a storyline. Secondly, the main reason to give him his own info, was to give writers/reader a chance to have more specific information on the character without mucking up the main wiki articles on the series. If the problem is that people only wrote enough info to make Murtagh a stub, I might understand. Fans get your books out and research, but just because it's inworld is no reason to delete it. I think wiki is making a big mistake. Actually, scratch that, a herculean mistake. So wizen up. Don't go around deleting things without thinking if it has value. Ingame/inworld has just as much value as outside info. If you don't believe me, why don't you check out every single article on every single character in every single book out there on wiki...99% are chalk full of inworld info about the characters, taken directly from the book...because last I checked...that's where the info COMES FROM!!! IT'S CALLED FICTION...WHERE ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO GET INFORMATION? Dragoon91786 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments in reply to your other edit also apply here. Una LagunaTalk 08:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And my comments in response to your comments also apply here as well...Dragoon91786 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Sorry I swore, it was unintentional.

[edit] Here's what I think about that.

@ immediately above, I think everyone that's a major player in Inheritance ought to have their own article, provided it's got enough external sources.--Gp75motorsports 10:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. But they dont. Hence the lack of pages. i said 23:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem nessesary to have a page on every important character when most of the information about them is just repeated from Eragon or Eldest.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sunny pretty much nailed the point. Why try to create new, encyclopedic articles when they just recycle information from other articles, or go into an unnecessary amount of depth? Una LagunaTalk 06:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And who said it was unnecessary? Last I checked people use this for either research or to find more about the series. In depth fandom info is VERY Useful...just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I constantly want to have summaries of characters, it makes understanding the books/movies/anime/tv shows/etc. a LOT EASIER! Honestly. Is all everyone thinks about around her, outworld info? Geez...that sort of information is what theonering.com and the-leaky-cauldron.org are for. Honestly, I don't need wikipedia to find out that sort of information. I do however use this for learning about characters who aren't always mentioned, small events, characters you don't normally hear about. Can't remember from the first three read through's. Geez guys, this information is useful. Why, are you all freaked out over the server usage? Geez. If that's the case, I feel for this site. It's going downhill, fast. Last I check, more information was better, so long as it was cohesive, intelligible, and not redundant. If this pattern keeps up, we might as well reset the whole site and start from scratch. And guess what. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Dragoon91786 (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Cleanup

This page is a mess, I am laughing at how much is wrong. First the characters are listed poorly, they should be put as importance to the story, not by alphabetical order. Second, there is vandalism in a few sections, and three, it looks like someone copied a whole section and repasted. Not that there is anything wrong, as long as it was a former page. The thing that is wrong is that when it was pasted, they forgot to delete all the little [edit] links. Also, there are characters listed twice, such as Eragon in two sections. Plus, the page is way to long. This whole page is totally in need of a cleanup. Anyone who would like to help cleanup this page would greatly be appreciated. Bd8494 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out some of the characters with more than 1section? I can only see eragon, and thats because theres 2eragons (the 1st rider and the eragon we know in the book).--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
yes i agree this article needs a substantial amount of cleanup, it riddles with original research, vandalism, and general all around inaccuracy. also i would like to request that someone please add more to the section on Arya, all she gets is one sentence even though she is one of the pivotal characters(spelling). also the general all around messiness is somewhat confusing, as the raz'ac just have a sentence about how they'r a rip off of the nazgul and tolkein must be rolling over in his grave. i would ask that this article be cleaned up and put on semi-protection.READY TO FINISH THE FIGHT! (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up link?

I found a link within the article 'Brom' Quoted below

"Near the end of Eragon he is killed by the Ra'zac"

In the link 'Ra'zac' it redirects to Algaesia. I am not well-knowledged with the lore of Inheritance but the article describes the Ra'zac as a character, yet it redirects to a location. Could someone amend this, or inform me if I am very much mistaken 84.45.134.188 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. If you want to know how I did this so you can do it in the future, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Grey Maiden talk 22:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Islanzadi section

The grammar in the Islanzadi section (the second part, mostly) is completely messed up. I'd fix it except I have no idea what it's trying to say. Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Galbatorix

Are there any links or references to this: "After his first dragon died, he forced Shruikan to bond with him using dark forms of magic, after killing his original rider" because it conflicts with the larger Galbatorix page.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BRISINGR.jpg

The image Image:BRISINGR.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. --13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)