Talk:Companions of the Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I don't understand what's wrong if the article is in-universe. those who will look for Faerun in internet will probably interested in in-universe information. of course, I agree that providing non-fictional material will be very useful and appropriate for an encyclopedia, but I don't think it's very necessary to raise all this fuss 'to delete or not delete'. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The articles Bruenor Battlehammer, Catti-brie, Drizzt Do'Urden and Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars(!) need to merged into this article, as per Regis (Forgotten Realms) and Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms). Neil ☎ 09:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal, as the exisiting articles have little real world context.--Gavin Collins 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging Drizzt is patently ridiculous. He's far and away the most well known FR character, probably tied with Elminster for most notable, and the original and very definition of a now-common fictional-character archetype. The others are arguable. As I said in the AfD for this article, though, I'm certain reliable secondary sources exist; they're just hard to find due to all the fan works and discussion out there, and I haven't had time to look in-depth. Is this really a pressing need? Powers ^T 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the Scimitars article needs to be merged into Drizzt, and the Bruenor and Catti ones into this article, at the very least. The alternative is AFD, and precedent suggests they would be deleted. If they're not merged in the next week or so, I will nominate them for AFD. Neil ☎ 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the scimitars. I'll admit the article seems silly to me at first, but then I saw Category:Middle-earth objects and its subcategories Category:Middle-earth weapons and Category:Middle-earth swords (!). There would seem to be some precedent for articles on iconic fictional swords. Powers ^T 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tolkein stuff tends to have a lot of sourcing, there's been lots of scholarly work and books written in terms of symbolism of the objects, and such. There isn't that here. Neil ☎ 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at all of the articles in Category:Middle-earth swords. None of them reference secondary sources. Some of them don't even reference primary sources. Have I missed something? Powers ^T 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. Why to hunt Forgrotten Realms atricles and have so little care about the Category:Middle-earth characters, many of which even don't present at the books (like Man in the Moon (Middle-earth)). All three characters, especially Drizzt, are notable (skimitars are to be merged with Drizzt himself, though). And certainly it is ridiculous to delete the main protagonists, who are only notable of all, while keeping 141 articles on Category:Forgotten Realms deities and minor characters like Captain Deudermont.Garret Beaumain 13:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge. You would loose information on the individual Characters. Paulwharton (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge i totaly agree there is deatails that will go missing not to mention it will be very long and the flow will be wrong. dragonfirered94 —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related note

My main concern is with the disorganized way in which these Forgotten Realms articles are being nominated and considered for deletion. People continue to use {{prod}} when it's obvious that most FR deletions are going to be controversial. We've been left with absurdities such as that where there's a consensus to merge to an article that has since been prodded, and where the least well-known of the Seven Sisters is merged while the most well-known is deleted. Starting with some of the myriad minor characters who have articles would have been less contentious than jumping straight to the Companions of the Hall. Powers ^T 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the two lists of characters (List of Forgotten Realms characters and List of characters in R. A. Salvatore's Forgotten Realms Series), which I am about to merge, most of the minor character articles appear to have articles because the links haven't been disambiguated (eg Kemp, Hooter, Cobble, Cassius, Sydney, Pinochet, Bok, Agatha). Neil ☎ 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but there are plenty without that problem. Of course, some of them were indeed nominated but it seems it would have been more productive to proceed a bit more logically, perhaps with input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Powers ^T 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that it'd be nice if the Realms had as many fans on Wikipedia as Discworld apparently does. =) Powers ^T 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)