Talk:Kender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kender article.
Article policies
WikiProject Dragonlance
This article is part of WikiProject Dragonlance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Dragonlance universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
DoomsDay349 (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Nightstalker and Otherlands

Just a note that nightstalkers are not a subrace for kender. The nightstalker is a prestige class in Age of Mortals. This is a role that true kender, afflicted kender, and half-kender can take.

Also, you might want to include the kendar from Otherlands. 216.81.240.241 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3.5 version versus prior?

I'm still unfamiliar with Dragonlance but my reading of the Dragonlance Campaign Setting (DLCS) and web sites like the Kencyclopedia make it clear that there's a disconnect between DLCS (using D&D 3.5 rules) and these other sources (based off 2.0 / 3.0 rules). Unfortunately, the DLCS book by itself doesn't say much about kender. You have to go elsewhere to figure out that a kender may be a gnome subtype, so when moving a kender out of Dragonlance into a typical D&D campaign, a kender should probably have low-light vision like gnomes, especially since DLCS doesn't mention visual acuity of gnomes either. And what about weapons? Kencyclopedia describes several more than this article describes; what sources did they come from?

Anyway, I'd like to see in this article some discussion of how the racial attributes may have changed through the different rule upgrades. DLCS indicates that taunt works differently in 3.5, for example. The article doesn't have to go into the nitty-gritty details of mechanics, but it would be nice to see some mention of what has changed. -Amatulic 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I would like to propose this article for deletion. Does any one have any suggestions on how the excessive plot summary can be removed and can meet the WP:RS requirement for secondary sources independent of the subject? Thanks a lot Pilotbob (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. It sounds like you want the article to be cleaned up, not deleted. Don't use that procedure for things it isn't intended for.
And yes, everything in this article can be sourced to either the Kencyclopedia or the game source books, if someone had the time and means. It wouldn't take long. --Masamage ♫ 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
PilotBob, while I admire that you are starting to bring your intentions to the Talk pages before applying tags I feel I must point out a couple of things.
First, deletion still needs to be a last resort option. You are coming here with the point of view of wanting to delete the article first unless it’s merits can be shown, and that is not part of the procedures a here. Articles are kept unless a reason can be found to delete them.
Second, I know you are trying to remain lower profile now, but by choosing Kender as your first test shows how much you do not know about this subject. Kender quite possibly are the most debated and controversial of any major D&D race.
Now, I do not think it is necessary to delete this article, but it could stand to cleaned up a bit.
For starters I would like to see most of the game relevant information removed.
Secondly I’d like to see some information on the above mentioned controversies. I’d also like to see a section detailing why Weis and Hickman choose to create a new race for their novels/games instead of using Halflings or even Gnomes (which I know are used elsewhere in the books).
Maybe even a little bit on what the publication history of Kender are. The Dragonlance books were best sellers, we are even getting a Dragonlance movie with Kender in it, that should be mentioned.
All in all there is nothing here that says this article should be deleted, but rather there is plenty of room for improvement.Web Warlock (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
ETA, for sources that meet WP:RS, yes, I have a few. More than enough to adequately source this article as is, but I'd rather see improvements made along with proper citations. Web Warlock (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The sections on life cycle and growing up seem poorly written and unimportant. They should be combined and shortened or removed completely. Beach drifter (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this article could easily be the subject of a deletion at AfD, as it fails WP:NOT#PLOT by a mile. Reliable secondary sources alone might not save this article. I would support its deletion if merger with a more notable topic is not possible. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not support deletion, simply because Kender are too notable a subject within the D&D world.
That said, the "Life cycle" section is too full of OR and should be deleted from this article. The expanded list of weapons don't need to be there either; such detail isn't really important to the subject, it's enough just to name the principal weapons and describe the rest in general terms.
Finally, there is much material that could be sourced but isn't. There should be plenty of books avaialble to reference, although the 3.5 edition doesn't say much about Kender. I would not reference the Kencyclopedia as it can't be regarded as an official source of information. -Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly there is no chance in hell this would be deleted if brought to AfD. There is too much out there and I could add it if I was given time. The nice thing is Wikipedia is not on a timeline. Web Warlock (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Right-o. And being mediocrely-written is definitely not a criterion for deletion. Like I said, it needs to be cleaned up, not chucked. It's way too independently notable to even be considered for that. --Masamage ♫ 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Cleanup

I've had a look at the article, and I don't think that there is any real justification for the plot cleanup tag. I don't have any major issues with the the others, but I can't see any significant amounts of plot in the article - and wouldn't expect to, as it is about a race that appears in multiple sources, rather than an individual member of that race. It is, however, very much in-universe. Unless there is a particular disagreement, I'm inclined to agree with Shadzar and remove the tag, if only to make it clearer to other editors as to what areas they should be focusing on. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia articles on fictional characters should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a their litterary development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that characters as they appear in the books in which they are dervied. This article does not contain any real-world content, save only for first sentence, and second reference which cites the Annotated Chronicles. This article is comprised of about 3,700 words of which 3,600 are plot summary. Kindly note that I am restoring the plot template which is highly relevant to this article in the hope that this issue will be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that they should have real-world content. My question is whether or not the issue here is in-universe or plot. It seems that the issue is in-universe, as I can't see much (if any) actual plot, but I can see a great deal of in-universe content. Thus it makes sense to use the appropriate tag, so that editors know where to focus their efforts. - Bilby (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • In the context or a book, plot mean plot summary, but with fictional characters plot means character descriptions, which are essentially plot elements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
as the one who started all this mess, i will further explain my removal of the tag and my reason for it. as i said in my edit summary i figured it was another case of blanket tagging. the plot tag makes no sense as a fictional race doesn't really have a "plot" to it. as mentioned above these ficitonal elements are in-universe, i guess it is called, but there is no plot. if the editor who sees fit to add these tags would udnerstand the articles more, then these mistakes would not so easily be made. again i repeat that just because something is fictional does not mean there are not other things that determine what it is. D&D and all material pertaining to it is a game set in a fictional world. when one can accept that then they can be freed from their bounds of ignorance of the subject matter and treat it as what it is. Harry Potter is set in a ficitonal world. Tasslehoff Burrfoot is a fictional character in many Dragonlance novels. Tas is also a kende. Just because Tas is a kender does not mean each article on anything related to kenders will directly have anything to do with the plot revolving around Tas. i removed the tag because i saw little to no plot in the article, but plenty of detail on the fictional race. i haven't reread it since, but am sure, (and will check after this is saved) to see if ANY real plot is in the article. i do not know all the tags so if the in-universe is beter then think that is the one that should be used. or as an administrator mentioned somewhere, using less tags to just identify than an article has several problems, which Gavin has ignored and continued to blanket articles with many clean-up tags. i think it really has little to nothign to do with the articles anymore, but Gavin trying to force other editors to conform to his views alone with those cohorts he may have that are of the same POV or agenda. again i figured it to be a mass tagging error when i removed it, and am having a hard time to see where there is plot let alone that "The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article." i would love to know the view, Gavin, that you have on what parts of the article you consider to be "plot summary" and what you consider to be "the rest of the article" since you included the tag to begin with. shadzar-talk 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Virtually all of the article is plot summary as I explained earlier. Kender are a ficitonal race, and as such are one of many fictional elements in the Dragonlance story. Plot is word that describes the relationship between fictional elements. The relationship between fictional characters, their friends, enemies, locations, artifacts, likes and dislikes, motivations, feelings etc are all explained by plot. Since vitually all of this article regurgitates plot from the source books, it fails WP:PLOT. If you don't believe me, ask someone who is independent of the subject matter to give their view.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, do you accept that Dragonlance is not just a story but a setting for D&D, and understand what settings are? They are large pieces of fictional details. None of any setting is actually real world, and are mostly all ficiton. The problem is things cross over form the novels to the game. In the game the Kender is another playing piece, like the rook in chess or race car in Monopoly. What many would like you to understand is that while D&D IS comprised of fictional enviroments, it is still a game. Therefore can not ONLY be bound to the policies on WP about fiction. I will phrase this in your other prefereed editing genre for you. Is accounting just math, or a tool? I say it is math used as a tool to perform a function (taxes, etc), like D&D is fiction used as a tool to play a game. Monopoly is a ficitonal world without all the "cruft", but you do not classify those articles under strictly fiction. D&D crosses lines into several things and cannot be defined by just one part of it. shadzar-talk 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You make a valid point, Gavin, except in this case we're not talking about a character, so much as a race that characters (and players, in terms of the RPG) belong to. That points made in the article occur in either the plot of the books or in the RPG rules doesn't mean that those points equate to plot summary. Hence the distinction between plot and in-universe tags. In this case it seems that either the plot tag is redundant or that the tag doesn't really describe the problem. At any rate, I'll probably fix this article some time soon - I did a quick search and found quite a few reliable sources, so it won't be a big job for a change. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Kender are still fictional elements in the plot. This is one instance where the Plot cleanup template is 100% justified. I can put this article forward for review at RFC if you don't beleive me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's barely worth the trouble - I'm just surprised you don't see what we're saying. In reading that article I discovered absolutely nothing about the plot of any of the stories in which Kenders might feature. A plot summary, as far as I can see, would summarize what happens in the plot, presumably focused in the subject of the article. But there is nothing like that here. What I get is an entirely in-universe description of what Kenders are like, which is a very different thing. The article needs work, doesn't provide evidence of notability, and is in-universe. But it doesn't have a plot summary, (even one embedded in the text), so a tag arguing that the plot summary is too long compared to the rest of the article seems to be misplaced. - Bilby (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Bilby, I think Gavin may be blurring the differences between in-universe info and plot, kind of taking them as the same thing. I don't know whether the seeming "anything related to the plot is therefore part of the plot" viewpoint fits in with any wikipedia standards or whether that's a personal definition. BOZ (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If you do that, of course, one of the two then becomes redundant. In which case I'd lean towards dumping plot summary is overly long" as that is specific and not clearly appropriate, while the more general in-universe tag addresses the underlying problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that, but I'm not the one you're trying to convince.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a plot summary summarizes what happens in the plot, and is focused in the subject of the article. However, a statement like "a Kender is 5 foot tall" is just a very specific detail from a plot summary. It is bit like saying "before I tell you a summary of the Kender story, I will give you a summary of their height, eye colour etc so you know what they look like". Whether you start your plot summary with their description or omit the detail from the plot summary, its all summary taken from primary sources. To paraphrase Boz, "any subset of the plot is part of the plot. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • so giving Wilt Chamberlains height in an article would be plot summary? come on now. as your first interest expressed on wikipedia, you should surely know from accounting that statistics are not plots. shadzar-talk 18:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wilt Chamberlain is a real-world person, and statistics are compiled by real people, by making actual observations. Kender are a fictional characters, and their height is derived from the same fictional source. Kender and their statistics are both fictional elements in the Dragonlance plot.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Plot" is clearly identified in the Manual of Style and other policy pages as the story or sequence of events in a fictional work. Elements of fantasy world-building do take up the majority of this page, but they are simply not the same thing as fictionalized events within a story, and it is confusing to claim that they are. I have removed the tag. The argument here is very well served by the "in-universe" tag, which is entirely appropriate for describing this article's problems and leaves no confusion. --Masamage ♫ 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think this is a mis-interpretation of WP:WAF, as in universe is a style or tone issue, rather than WP:NOT#PLOT which deals with the article's substance. Paraphrasing the guideline "Plot summaries can be written from the real world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In Dragons of Summer Flame", "Chapter II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces the Kender...", "The story describes the Kender as being 4ft tall...)". If this article is not plot summary then, by default, it must be original research, as where else could it have been derived from? Since this article is probably not original research (I am assuming good faith here, although there are hardly any foot notes to provide evidence the article is not OR), then it must be based on plot actions. If you say Kender are 4ft tall, that's a plot element because it's verified by the plot. You talk about the fictional height of Kender in any way, it's based on what happend in the plots of the Dragaonlance books or games. Being "in-universe" means speaking in a tone that presents the subject as if they are real. For that case to be so, and not be original research, it means you are verifying the information by reference to the plot ("According to the Irda, the Kender usually grow to be 4ft tall...") which are plot pieces.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Descriptions of characters are not plot. They are not specialized plot elements. They are descriptors of elements in the game. Plot is "what happens next?" The PLOT tag is entirely misplaced here, as so many other users are trying to tell you. Please respect the overwhelming consensus of the other editors on this page, and accept that the in-universe and notability tags are sufficient for cleanup. Snuppy 00:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do tell me the plot of the Dragonlance game, Gavin. Funny my copy of the board game does not have kenders even in it. I has some dragons or various colors, some lances, and some other little playing pieces to determine the winner, but there is no story or plot. you move around the board to reach the goal. Now this may not be the same game you are talking about, but you do not mention a specific one. again i think you are blurring the lines between ficiton and game for your own purpose, so that it meets you classification of D&D as a book rather than a game still. wihtout acknowlidging it as both, even though you use the term game now. reviewing your edit history you keep making changes to how you edit. all good editors should do this to properly contribute to WP. but it seems your time and efforts would be much better seved again on articles you are familiar with. feel free to go look for other works of ficiton to edit. yes D&D and RPG related articles do have many errors that need fixing, and there are a lot of them. again i ask why you persist in wanting to "fix" the articles if you do not care to gain knowledge of them to make a judgement on them? Since you like quoting portions of WAF, i suggest you read it again since you have in the past placed in-universe tags on articles. i direct your attention to this part: "If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, preferably improve it yourself,". you cannot begin to improve any of them yourself as you have no knowledge of the subject matter no care to gain any. why do you keep harrasing other editiors then isntead of moving on to another subject matter for articles to "fix"? shadzar-talk 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good questions. Gavin has been asked them multiple times by multiple editors, and to my knowledge he has yet to answer why he focuses on D&D and RPG articles almost exclusively without having any real knowledge of the topic by his own admission, nor an apparent desire to rectify that situation. It stretches my effort to assume good faith, but I'm trying hard.Shemeska (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I now I understand (I think) what Gavin means when he's been talking about a "middle ground" that isn't covered. Why you think it would be something to fix at WP:FICT, I don't know, but I think it might be worth differentiating plot (what happens, not the details of the setting), in-universe style, and in-universe content; the last of these isn't really covered anywhere, but a notability guideline isn't the place for it (notability doesn't limit content); the distinction could be made in WP:WAF or WP:PLOT, and an extra template made, if you like, or we could modify the inuniverse template to cover both (which would probably be less fruitful). SamBC(talk) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In this specific case, neither the plot nor in-universe templaets are entirely appropriate here, but I feel that inuniverse is nearer the mark for now. SamBC(talk) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks, SamBC. That makes sense, and if you're right (which I think you are) I can see where Gavin is coming from. Up until now, though, I've been assuming that the requirement for "real world" coverage addresses in-universe content, which is probably still the case, but I suspect I've been conflating in-universe content with in-universe style. Gavin seems to be conflating in-universe content with plot. I agree that perhaps modifying the in-universe tag would be the best solution. Although I guess that also raises a question as to whether or not in-universe content, as opposed to plot or style, is a problem with fiction articles. It reminds me of the old issue in philosophy (if I may digress for a second) - the statement "Sherlock Holmes lives at 21B Baker Street" is true in one sense, yet in another Sherlock Holmes never existed, and therefore never lived there. It is in-universe content, but it also seems a valid comment for an encyclopedia, being both true and verifiable. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • After sleeping, I think we should have an extra template, or better parameterise
This article or section describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style.
Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

so it can be applied with arguments specifying "style" or "content"; the default would be as-it-is right now, but later could be turned into something noncommital saying "content and/or style". SamBC(talk) 13:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That works for me - it describes what needs to be done to improve the article, and should be a significant improvement. The plot cleanup tag doesn't serve the same role, as I think has been agreed. - Bilby (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding "Sherlock Holmes lives at 21B Baker Street" – that statement is both in-universe style and in-universe content. Mentioning the novels, the author, or suchlike in the statement (or near it; once per paragraph or even section should be fine IMO) makes it in-universe content but not style; a source commentary on the implications of this fact or results of it means it is neither, but rather a background to real-world information. That's the way I see the distinction. In my view, WP:PLOT ought to apply to all in-universe content, but the plot-cleanup template isn't worded in a way that could. In-universe style should be rarely (if ever) used, but in-universe content definitely has a place; on some topics, more of a place than others. Maybe we need another guideline in between WP:WAF and WP:FICT that interprets and explains WP:PLOT, to guide the inclusion of in-universe content; WP:WAF is more about in-universe style. SamBC(talk) 13:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My concern with such a guideline - not that I'm opposed, mind you - is that the distinction between when in-universe content is and isn't useful is going to be fairly arbitrary, and it would be difficult to write something which clearly draws that distinction in such a way as to be useful to editors and not open to abuse from either side. Notability is simpler, as it can be made measurable (noting that there are ongoing debates about how it should be measured and to what extent), and overly long plot summaries can also be measured as a percentage of the article. But the extent to which in-universe fictional content is appropriate will be very difficult to measure. For example, while there is clearly too much here (hence the need for the tag), I can see a good argument that a fictional fantasy race warrants more in-universe content than, say, a fictional character of that race. But that's probably a discussion for another place. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#PLOT is definitely applicable here. There is some confusion about the definition of plot (substance) and style (in universe). For instance, if I say " the Kender went to the forest on Tuesday", clearly that is plot summary, but the style is in universe. But so also if I say "the Kender went to the forest on Tuesday. Kender are usually 4 feet tall", that is also plot summary, just at an increased level of detail. The finer the detail, the deeper the article runs contrary to WP:NOT#PLOT. So until you start measuring their height, but can't decide whether you use feet or metric (perhaps the Kender are not using the Imperial weights and measures system after convberting to the French metric system?) you are either in WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:OR territory. Choose your poison, but either way, the content of this article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So I guess SamBC and I misinterpreted what you were saying - to rather, mislabeled it. However the plot tag you refer to is about plot summary. Kenders being 4 feet tall isn't plot summary, even if I accept that it is plot, (and I'm not inclined to in this case, as this detail could come from multiple sources, some of which - the RPG and articles - don't have a plot for it to be part of). Which is why we (or at least I - I shouldn't make claims about SamBC's thoughts) were thinking that such points are better seen as in-universe content, and that the tags should be modified to include this sort of information. - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now I am getting confused, and need to restate my view. You are right, I am mistaken - the example you give is synthesis, not plot summary. However, WP:NOT#PLOT is definitely applicable to this article as well. There is also some confusion about the definition of the substance and the style of this article. For instance, when the article says "according to the Scion loremaster of the dwarves, (whose origin is linked to the Dwarves,and a rather long story itself), when the Greygem came to Krynn, its chaotic magic transformed an elven army into the first Kender", clearly that is plot summary, and the style is in universe. On the other hand, when the article says "the Kender are usually 4 feet tall", that is synthesis, using a real world comparative (imperial weights and measures) to describe a fictional character. The finer the detail, the deeper the article runs contrary to WP:SYNTH. This article mixes WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:SYNTH together. Both the plot and synthesis cleanup templates should be added to this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Most fantasy and science fiction uses "real-world" measurements, so that isn't synthesis; even if it were, it wouldn't be improper synthesis. The writing of any article (from more than once source) always involves synthesis. WP:SYNTH forbids synthesis to advance a position. SamBC(talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As for the phrases referring to fictitious history, calling that plot summary is always going to spark some disagreement, as a lot of gamers will not see such "background" as the same thing as "plot"; personally, I see them as nearly the same thing, closely related, but not quite the same. To explain the difference as-I-see-it would take a length that is both inappropriate here, and unavailable in my time right now. SamBC(talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and it's not a fictional character, it's a fictional race. SamBC(talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken on all three points. Kender, don't actually exist in the real-world, so real world comparision with a measurement system such as a Foot (length) is not possible. I doubt very much that the books themselves use real-world measures as it would be absurd to expect that inhabitants of a fictional world of magic, gnomes and dragons to use a scientific measurement system, imperial, metric or otherwise. This might be an intersting basis for literary critisism, but that goes beyond the scope of our discussions here. The bottom line is that mixing real-world speculation with fictional plot elements is definitely synthesis from an intellectual perspective should be avoided, because it is misleading, but also because it goes against the grain of what Wikipedia's policy on original research. Your point about "backround" is again mudding the water: if you can't explain what "backround" is, then I suspect you are confused, as I was. Lastly your point about Kender being a fictional race is a red herring. In the real-world, a Kender is fictional character. Just because this article chooses an in universe perspective to describe them in the plural or apply a synthesis of real world description such as Race (classification of human beings) (which is a complex area of scientific study, but only applicable to the real-world). I can understand SamBC's misunderstanding of these issues as I was not clear about them myslelf until now. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What??? To anyone familiar with common practices in fantasy, you just made no sense. Almost all F&SF uses "real-world measurements", it's a way of avoiding confusing the reader; in both the novels and the game background (and game rules) distances, weights, etc, are all done using real-world units. The preface to Nightfall by Isaac Asimov gives a good explanation as to why authors do this. Lord of the Rings uses the same days of the week as modern English in the Gregorian Calendar, and describes distances using a variety of real world units. SamBC(talk) 10:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Where in WP:OR does it say that mixing information from a number of sources is inherently disallowed? And I'm not "muddying the waters", I'm pointing out that they are muddy, however much you want to simplify things. SamBC(talk) 10:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Finally, you can substitute "species" for "race" if you like; race is just the term that is used in the field, and it doesn't mean the same thing as Race (classification of human beings), instead it refers to (rather obviously) Race (fantasy). And "a kender" might be a fictional character, meaning a specific one, but this article is about kender in general, ie, the race. SamBC(talk) 10:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I disagree because I think you might be unclear as what you are looking for in this article. Of course you can use real-world measurements in fiction, and you make an intersting point that Asimov used similar conventions in his work, and actually stated this. However, this article assumes that the certain measurement conventions apply to this series of novels, whereas they might not; maybe height is not expressed in feet and inches at all (the article does not cite any sources to confirm this, alas). In the absence of real-world analysis of the literary convention regarding the measurement of height in the Dragonlance novels, I think it is fair to say that the statement "Kender are small, 3 to 4 foot tall creatures" is a classic example of synthesis: note the link to foot (unit of measurement) implies that the unit of measurement is imperial units. This may appear to be nitpicking, but I think it is important to know what synthesis is when over 70% of this article is comprised of it. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. However this article makes claims about the fictional character without making each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly. Lastly your point about species is again mistaken, becasue a species is a real world term used in biology. I think what you are trying to say is that Kender are a category of fictional characters.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Working backwards through your post... no, I'm saying that Kender are a fictional race – try following that link; it would put Kender on a par with Elves, Dwarves, Kobolds, Ogres... (of course, when I mention those I mean the modern fantasy concepts, not the mythology). Yes, it is important to know what synthesis is, but I'm not convinced you do. You've convinced me that I may not be right on the mark, but I'm completely certain that you're not either. "Kender are 4 feet tall" without a source is bad sourcing, not synthesis. I'm fairly sure that we would find consensus supporting the idea that, if a work of fiction uses a real-world measurement, it can be assumed to be the same as the real-world measurement. However, the link on feet could be removed, especially given some recent MoS discussions regarding links to units. Making claims without attribution is a possible OR problem, but synthesis is generally cited when it is clearly happening: two or more sources are cited and a conclusion made that is not in either. That is not the same as bad sourcing. Lack of sourcing could be OR, but when editors who are knowledgeable in the subject agree on the content, it is more likely to be simple poor sourcing than original research. It may be valid to say that the article is poorly sourced, and I wouldn't be surpised if some parts are genuine OR, but I don't see anything you've mentioned as being improper synthesis. SamBC(talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, with reference to "your point about species is again mistaken, becasue a species is a real world term used in biology" – are you suggesting that no real world terminology should be used to describe or discuss elements of fiction? SamBC(talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I followed the link to Race (fantasy), and I have found an essay about fantasy races which is comprised of original research. My view is that there are fantasy races in fiction, but in the real-world, there are actually categories of fictional characters, so I disagree with you on this point. I almost accept your arguments about this article may or may not be made up of orgininal research, but I still believe this article is synthesis, because it takes content cited from various (primary) sources to advance the point of view that Kender are a unique fantasy race, when in fact they are a category of fictional character and the article does not provide any reliable evidence to show that they are unique at all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That article actually says some sensible things and should help guide someone who isn't used to the fantasy mileu; it is, however, very badly put together. If I remember, I'll sort it out when I have some free time. SamBC(talk) 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by unique; they are a distinct race in a setting, individual kender may be characters in fiction, or may be characters in a game. Race is the term that is used in the field, so that's what we should use. Now, advancing the POV that they are unique might be on to something, I'll skim the article again, as I think I might understand what you're getting at... watch this space. SamBC(talk) 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I found improper synthesis, and I hope this is what you were talking about; it certainly isn't 70% of the article, mind you... talked about in synthesis section below. SamBC(talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptions of fictional characters are part of the plot summary?

Are descriptions of fictional characters part of the plot summary? (as indicated in the above section) BOZ (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • As I have indicated above, I would categorise them as something that is outside of current guidance, and guidance should be remedied regarding such; I would describe it as "in-universe content", which is a problem, but not as much of one as "in-universe style"; plot is really a subset of "in-universe content", and it isn't always even that; WP:PLOT doesn't even refer entirely to fiction, so it's really a set with non-empty intersection with "in-universe content". That's the way I see it, a way that makes sense, and wouldn't annoy people writing about broad and deep fiction topics. SamBC(talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All about Kendermore

it seems only the italics section quoted to be from Dragon Magazine is actually copied from that article. The rest seems to be from various other places in that article and will require lots of time to decipher whee the information about Kendermore was gotten. it seems to be a collection from all sources having kender, novels, sourcebooks, etc. shadzar-talk 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis

Will the editor who added the tag, please respond here with details on which portion(s) of the article specifically have this problem so they can be addressed. shadzar-talk 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

About 70% of the article is synthesis, and probably the rest is a mix of plot summary, original research with maybe a couple of sentences that provide some real-world content in the introduction. In my judgement, the proportion of plot summary is relatively small, but because no real-world content has been cited from reliable secondary sources, the plot summary combined with an in universe perspective drags the whole article outside the scope of Wikipedia. I suggest you put this article forward for Wikipedia:Peer review if you don't beleive me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you unable to "put it forward", or since I asked about the issues, WP policy requires me personally to do it? shadzar-talk 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the improper synthesis? WP:SYNTH states that what is forbidden is "...when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." I don't see any attempts to advance a position, just present a range of information; I haven't use a fine-tooth comb, so if you can point out any such instances, please do. Specific ones; not all of them, if there really are so many, just a representative sampling. SamBC(talk) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's not 70% of the article by any means, but I found improper synthesis – the unsourced claims, backed up by separate facts, that Kender are very distinct from other "halfling" races. Even without this, they may deserve a small article, and I suspect that that fact may be found in a source somewhere, but at the moment we appear to have improper synthesis. SamBC(talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Gavin, if that's what you were talking about in the first place, it would've saved a lot of bother if you'd just said so originally, and I don't know where the "70%" came from; the facts used to create synthesis are fine on their own, but the synthesis itself isn't. SamBC(talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree it was synthesis - I'm almost certain that I've seen that claim in an RS somewhere, but as mentioned earlier it is pretty much impossible to distinguish between OR, Synth, and simple lack of citations when the citations are missing. I suspect that everything tagged OR will later prove to be a lack of references, but it was never disputed here that the article lacked refs (that and the failure to assert notability have always been givens), so I'm not overly concerned. Anyway, now that I had something to fix, I've done so. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Good fix. Maybe if a few of us go through the whole article to find specifics it'll lead to cleanup actually getting done; I'll do it next time I'm taking a break from my MSc work due to brain blockage; Gavin, you up for finding and labelling specific cases? SamBC(talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since citations in this article are few and far between, I would like the synthesis template restored.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I think you're referring to the citations tag, and that's already there. - Bilby (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As improper synthesis is defined in WP:OR, it cannot exist without sources and citations; a lack of sources and citations means either poor sourcing (things that can be sourced but haven't) or original research; I'm fairly happy that this article is far more at fault for the former than the latter. SamBC(talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You using circular reasoning. You have stated that you don't think this article is orginal research, because you presume that the source of its content is the novels; now you are saying it is not synthesis because their are no sources. Either way, you need to pick your poison. Either the OR or SYNTH cleanup template needs to be added to this article to alert readers and encourage editors to make improvments; I will support either one. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Lack of sources does not imply OR; if it did, we wouldn't need all the refimprove tags, just the OR ones.Lack of source can be an issue of either WP:V or WP:OR; I'm fairly confident it's V in this case. SamBC(talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Really? Statements like "Their hair is usually a lighter shade than other races because of all the time they spend outside" is not OR? I don't think lack of sources is the the only problem here. Pick your poison. Either the OR or SYNTH cleanup template.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • or the citation template since it may be a direct quote from a book describing Kenders. can you, Gavin, prove that the bit about the hair you mention above is NOT a citation from a book and is original research, or synthesis to further ones point of view? shadzar-talk 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) I'm assuming that this is a topic you know little about, like most of the RPG topics you get involved in; without any evidence to the contrary, assuming that an editor who added that statement just made it up is an appalling contravention of WP:AGF. Assuming good faith, we assume that the user who added it had a source and just didn't include it; wikipedia hasn't actually always been strict about sourcing. If, after a good-faith search, no-one can find a source, it should be removed as unverifiable. As it stands, it's perfectly likely that a novel or sourcebook made that statement; it's especially along the lines of what you often get in sourcebooks. SamBC(talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you may now be avoiding the issue of cleanup. We know that there may be plot summary, synthesis or orginal research present in this article, as there is little or no non-trivial real-world content referenced from reliable sources. So which cleanup template(s) do you are appropriate so that readers and other editors are alerted to the fact that sources need to be added to address these issues? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Not at all; above, I suggested we go through and label the specific issues where they occur; in terms of article-level tags, I say the three that are there now cover it: in-universe style, notability, and citations-needed. Possibly also references needed, but the possibility of that is implied by the citations-needed tag. I think that the plot summary tag should have a partner for in-universe content, as many people differentiate that from plot; if that template came into being, I'd add that one too. You know, one saying "this article has too much in-universe content compared to real-world analysis and content", or better-composed words to that effect. SamBC(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You can if you like, but in fairness to me, I think one if not all of the cleanup templates I have put there should be restored on the basis that, if you are not adding new sources, then they still apply. Please restore the cleanup templates you reverted, as removing them does not remedy the cleanup issues that they were put there to address. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We've explained why templates other than those that are left are not appropriate; in fairness to me, I haven't removed any. However, at this point I would not support adding any. You have not indicated what OR or synthesis there is in the article; all of the items you've pointed out have been cases where logic and AGF would indicate it to be a simple issue of sourcing. SamBC(talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Gavin's insistence that the disputed tag be re-added seems to me to be an ownership WP:OWN issue. I ask Gavin to respect the other editors who agree that this template's inclusion isn't appropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Insisting that his opinion about which templates belong on the article is the only opinion that matters is contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'd also invite Gavin to actually make edits to improve the article, which would seem to be a more constructive approach than insisting that a tag be re-added to the article. Rray (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is easy to accuse me of ownership, but that is a double edged sword; you have to give my viewpoint respect as well as your own, and ignoring my view viewpoint also goes against the spirit of colloboration. My edits to the article have been constructive: I have added the Synthesis cleanup template on the basis that this article asserts that "Kender are a fictional race unique to the Dragonlance world" without citing any sources that do not explicitly reach the same conclusion. If you have sources that support this position, add them and remove the template. However, removing the template without effecting cleanup is self-defeating; refusing to accept there is a cleanup issue will not make it go away.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I assume you mean "without citing any sources that explicitly reach the same conclusion", without the negative. It's a very awkward thing to source, because no-one would feel the need to say it. They were created for the dragonlance setting, certainly, and they don't seem to appear anywhere else. It's unsourced information, ertainly, and possibly OR, although we don't usually call things that are obvious OR. It's not synthesis because the statements doesn't use several sources to infer the statements. And yes, people should respect your views; however, you should also respect the views of a larger number of people. The fact these people know more about the subject isn't a big deal, but also has some sway in the matter. It would be more appropriate to tag that sentence with a [citation needed], although I wouldn't object to it being replaced with "Kender are … featuring in the Dragonlance world"; I'd personally prefer "setting" to "world", myself, but that's a matter of taste. SamBC(talk) 10:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the reasoning you have put forward that it is possibly OR, then I will add the Original research cleanup template.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to cheer everyone up, I've changed the wording so the line isn't problematic anymore. Thus I've also removed the tag. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. What about the original research that litters the rest of the article? Speculation about fictional characters such as "A kender's topknot is usually a source of pride for them" or "It's said that the worst thing you can do to a Kender, is isolate it" is clearly original research. I am still of the view that the OR template should be restored. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It's unsourced, not OR. Something unsourced always "might be" OR, but it's not reasonable to assume that it is. SamBC(talk) 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, WP:OR says "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found". I have challenged this content and have placed a cleanup template on the article. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources to demonstrate that the content of this article is not OR. If you cannot add sources, then please stand aside. Allow me to restore the template to encourage othereditors to add sources. Please do not obstruct the cleanup process. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The proper way to indicate that an article needs additional sources is to tag the article with the refimprove tag. Nothing more, nothing less. Amazingly, it indicates to potential editors that the references need to be improved.
    The improper way to tag any article is to scour the lists of guidelines, policies, and tags and slap on every imaginable tag which can be somehow justified through quote mining and occasionally torturous logic. Tagging this article with a synthesis tag seems to me to be much closer to the latter way than the former. I've seen too many examples in various parts of the 'pedia where some editors attempt to slap as many tags as possible on an article, perhaps to build a later case that the article should be deleted, "after all, look at all the tags!" I sincerely hope that this is not the case here. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have more or less said on this talk page that this article is a prime candidate for merger or deletion because over 90% of its content fails one or more guidelines. However, if the tags get these problems rectified, then I am a strong believer in the tags. We have gone to the effort of diagnosing the problems, now we are tagging the patient for a cure. The diagnosis of this article's problems has been torturous indeed, but the lack of references is too broad a diagnosis to make for all it's ills. The analogy here is if you have diagnosed a patient with a broken arm and a leg, you don't tag him with a note to the surgeon to say "He has broken bones". --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, indeed, and that's a prime argument not for a multitude of effectively redundant tags, but for marking in the text the places that need citations. {{fact}} is ideal for this, and for things that really do represent synth, {{syn}}. I would leave off diagnosing OR when you don't know the topic area well enough to tell the difference between poor sourcing and probable-OR. SamBC(talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The tags are not redundant, as clearly there is a cleanup problem in this article which involve a mix of guidelines, a point are all agreed on. As regards the accusation that I am not well qualified to know what is and is not OR is just your point of view. Until such time you add sources to this article to cleanup this article, you are in the same boat as me: the burden of proof that this article does not have OR problems is dependent on the addition of reliable sources to verify this assertion. Once again (and in the absense of in line tags), I request that the OR cleanup template be restored. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • i would like to state that by your own admited ignorance of the subject matter of D&D itself, that you are not qualified to tell what it original research when dealing with D&D related articles. since the burden of proof does lie on the accuser, then please provide proof that this article is riddled with original research. first simply be answering this one question: have you read all the material ever published on DragonLance and/or kenders to know that some editor just put two and two together rather than quoting something improperly without the correct references or citations? can you prove the statemetns you claim to be original reaserch are not just lacking proper citations? Alone searching for the remark about "topknots" will take a lot of time to do. it would probably require its own "wikiproject:kender topknots". the volume of material required to research the statement is not small. for a long time you have been informed of, yet wish to ignore the fact; that D&D has many sources of material over its 30+ years of existance. also, not all of the material created has been updated with technology, and requires actually reading in physical form, rather than being able to use an automated computerized search for a phrase. since compiling such a searchable version of all such material would probably be illegal under copyright laws, then each source must be searched and verified the old fashion way. feel free to help in this research if you truely are interested in making this or any other article better, rather than having no knowledge of the subject matter, and drive-by tagging, whitout even making a mention of specifics on a talk page for an article even when the tags you add specificaly mention to see the talk page. odd how you are unable to start any discussion on talk pags of articles you see to have problems, but can pub on almost every user talk page some "cease and desist order" when you notice a tag has been removed for appearing to be improperly used. that is why some tags include the portion to se the talk page about the problems found. if you are going through the trouble with reading the articles, and have no interest in doing any of the work to correct them, the least you could do is mention a problem on an article talk page first to prevent confusion and stres between other editors. shadzar-talk 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remind me, in which Wikipedia guideline does it say you have to in some way qualified to edit Dragonlance articles? My view is if experts had edited this article, this whole thread would never have been started. It seems to me experts on Dragaonlance are few and far between here at Wikipedia. Without the assistance of cleanup tags, it is going to take a miracle to get reliable secondary sources added to this article. I may as well leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion asking them to pray to St Jude for a miracle rather than leave one on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragonlance asking for an expert for what good that would do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, please be careful of just what you seem to be implying about the editors within Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragonlance or that particular project itself, being that Saint Jude is the patron saint of lost causes. Please try to remain as civil as possible towards those with different viewpoints.Shemeska (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am glad you got the gist of my joke, but I am sorry if you are offended. In answer to my own question, it clearly states in Wikipedia:About that I do not need specialized qualifications to contribute. Those parts of this article which do not cite sources do not have any evidence to show that are not based on Original Research, and I believe the Original Research cleanup template that has been removed from this article should be restored pending the rectification of this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about Original Research

It is alleged that this article contains Original Research, but the need for a cleanup template is disputed. What should be done? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The allegation that this article contains original research has been disputed by a number of editors. Do you have a specific instance where you have noted original research. The article in question already has a number of clean-up templates that, if addressed, should take care of any problems the article has. Ursasapien (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have mentioned a few instances - see the above discussion. However, almost 70% of the article is unsourced OR in in view, so it is not hard to miss.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. You said earlier that the article was nearly all plot summary. Then that changed to all "in-universe". Then THAT changed to all synthesis. Now it's all OR. Please list specific instances of each in order to define the areas you consider problematic, and editors who know something about the subject may be able to address your concerns. Snuppy 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to link this earlier (apologies), but I also tried to get more opinions at WT:OR. The general gist there is that unsourced content is not automatically assumed to be OR, but that in cases where there is disagreement, move the content in question to the talk page until it's resolved. Now, we're not going to do that with the whole article unless there's positive evidence that it's OR, I'm sure, but if Gavin (or anyone else) wants to go through the article and identify specific issues (either with inline tags or notes here) then we can look at things, and movement to talk may be appropriate in some instances. SamBC(talk) 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, and I repeat, I do not have to provide postive evidence that this article contains OR. It is a reasonable presumption that in universe descriptions of fictional characters are Original Research if they are uncited. This is more that an issue about style or verification; unsubstatiated speculation about these characters is being presented as fact, and readers should warned, as well as improvement requested. You can remove the uncited material if you wish (which would effect cleanup), but simply removing the OR template without making any effort to either add citations or remove uncited material must be seen as an obstruction to cleanup. Please replace the template or remove uncited material in the first instance. I will not ask again. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So, you're disagreeing with (as far as I can tell) everyone here, plus the uninvolveds at WT:OR, who say that uncited information is not presumed to be OR. At this point, isn't it worth supposing that consensus might be against you? SamBC(talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I should also point out that I only said we needed positive evidence in order to do something drastic like remove the bulk of the article. SamBC(talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"I will not ask again" -- Is this some kind of threat? --Masamage ♫ 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I know of no policy that says plot summary is original research. Gavin seems to be confusing one issue with another in this situation. Rray (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, you are heading down a dangerous path now. Your idiosyncratic view that un-cited automatically equates to original research is one thing, but to issue ultimatums crosses the line into disruption. I would like to ask, or what?” If the answer is “or I will edit-war to enforce my oppositional point of view” then, IMO, you are heading toward a block. Ursasapien (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I see some controversy above about whether this article is based on "plot summaries" or not, and whether it is an in-universe description of fictional characters or not. For example, whether the "fact" that kender are 3-4 ft tall is original research based on the novels. And indeed, when I look at the references, and most of what I see is ultimately based on the novels. Why not base more of the information in this article on the rulebooks? For example, Dragonlance Adventures, or more recent publications of that sort, perhaps even some edition of the Monster's Manual? Those types of books would provide tables with "factual" information that doesn't require any original analysis and is not a "plot" by any stretch of the imagination. They would also connect the article better with the real world from the point of view of the game, rather than just the novels. The rulebooks could provide some references for the sections on appearance, traits, and life cycle, which are completely unreferenced and too long in my opinion. Also, these sections are written in a sort of "anecdotal" style which I'm not sure is appropriate.

I used to have these books, but after moving several times I don't have them with me anymore. But I'm sure that some of the fans here will have access to the books. --Itub (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Based on the novels" doesn't equate to original research; it equates to primary-source use. Original research would be something you found out completely on your own, like "kender are easy to play, but the roleplaying aspect can be hard to keep track of" or "the gamebooks contain some inconsistencies" or "the kender depicted in official artwork have unrealistically thick hair". See WP:OR. --Masamage ♫ 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
the rulebooks detailing kenders use various heights in this instance for kenders. without quoting each book and the height listed in them for the various heights, dependending on the author of the rulebook, how else would you tell the height. "Within the various rules for D&D, the kender is depicted as being 3' to 4' tall"? but that how would you cite that, unless you tried to include al 20 books that give "game statistics" on them. in all actuallity the game statistic themselves are taken directly form the novels, as DragonLance was made after the popular novels, by mostly the same authors (Hickman & Weis). so for the novels it is the same information as the rulebooks...??? shadzar-talk 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Giving the height range from just one rulebook would already be better than getting it from the novel, because the novels don't tend to speak in statistical terms but more in terms of the description of individual characters. For example, if the novel says that Tasslehoff is 4 feet tall (or whatever), does that really represent all Kender? I'm just using height as an example, but many of the other pieces of anecdotal information are much worse. For example, "on rare occasions, Kender find cursed artifacts such as a ring that forcibly teleports them from place to place, wands with powerful spells inside, and on one occasion, a statue that can Polymorph the owner into an adolescent Bronze Dragon." These are just anecdotes from the novels and apply to individual characters. Generalizing them to the entire race is an original opinion. These are (fictional) facts that could be sourced to specific page numbers in the novels, but who says that they are representative of Kender as a race? That's what makes parts of this article look like an original synthesis. Summarizing the description of the race given in the rulebooks would not be an original synthesis. Another good source could be the Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home, which again has already-digested information without having to refer to the novels. --Itub (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
that sadly is one i never got. i also haven't read many of the novels in years, so i don't really know where the novel information comes from. mostly the race from the novels is taken and given stats for the rules from what i know. since the same person wrote both. so how do you deal with the overlap? when various books state various heights for example, then how do you pin one down as correct? other Dragonlance material was written by people other than the novel authors, so who got it right, and which is correct as they are all under the same copyright holders products? shadzar-talk 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home is available on amazon.com, [2] and has their "search inside" feature. It is actually possible to read the entire chapter about Kender online for free (but you need to have an amazon user account, I think). Just search for "Kender", go to page 65, which lets you page from page 63 to 67, and then search again but go to page 69, which lets you page from page 67 to 71. This is enough to read the whole section. Of course, if you try to read the entire book this way you end up bumping into a viewing limit, but I don't know how many pages that is. Hope this helps. --Itub (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, what is wanted is a reliable secondary (preferably third party) summary, although summarising a range of sources by giving a representative range would be just-about-okay in my book, provided there's a source for each end of the range, and phraseology like "Kender heights are attested from n feet to m feet". However, Itub raises a worthwhile point about the myriad items in the article which are anecdotes from fiction, rather than any sort of general point. If there is a general trend for Kender to find magical artifacts and strange things to happen as a result, that would need to come from a secondary source. SamBC(talk) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working

OK, Gavin seems OK with it, and I have cleared it with the mediator Vassyana, so I am soliciting some assistance with this current part of the mediation process.

One task is to find sources for the article. This includes not only finding third-party sources to firmly establish the notability of kender, but also sources to use as citations for the information currently in the article, or for information that is not in the article but should be, or if you have any suggestions about good places to find references. If you feel bold enough, you can post the source directly on the page; otherwise you can post on this talk page and it will be copied to the sources page.

You can also help with the trim page; however I would ask that you not edit the project page itself, but post specific ideas on the talk page if you feel bold, or post here otherwise.

Please, if you do post on any of the above mediation pages, try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments to a minimum (avoid them completely as possible), as that can easily degenerate into the typical sort of argument and kill the mediation process. BOZ (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the articles while at work, but here are some thoughts.

Hopefully this helps. Turlo Lomon (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just remembered another interesting tidbit. There is a kender character in the Spelljammer series of novels as well. Should be added under the novel section. Turlo Lomon (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)