Talk:Kor (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Citations really needed?

I have now added the three pages that are the source of all information in this article. Is it still necessary to indicate for each sentence or paragraph, which page refers to it? I think anyone willing to check the source or wanting to know more does now know where to look in sufficient detail. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The "information" you refer to is actually plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective; there is no real-world content at all. Without citations, this reads like original research, so citations are required.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Jep, I think you are right about the heavy in universe perspective (except for the new introductory scentence, which should, in my opinion, provide enough context for someone not familiar with the concepts of D&D). And that is why I do not want to remove your in universe tag. But here I want to discuss the nofootnotes tag seperately.
As far as I have seen, there are no wikipedia guidelines against plot summaries - they are just not enough to constitute an article by themselves. If you think otherwise, I would be happy if you could point me to the exact guideline.
I have not yet completely given up hope that somebody else might rewrite this article to deal with the in universe problem. Considering this, do you think that it was an improvement if the article looked like that instead of as it looks now? Daranios (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you are making an effort to improve the article using citations but your latest version is still fundamentally flawed in two regards:

  1. There article is almost all plot summary; and
  2. The plot summary has a heavy in universe perspective, such that it is treating fictional elements of the charcacter as fact.

You are correct that plot summaries are allowed, but if you have a look at WP:NOT#PLOT, it says:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain 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. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

This means that plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic. The other problem relates to treating fact as fiction. Have a look at WP:WAF, partlicularly the section on in universe perspective. If you are going to provide a plot summary, it has to be stated as such, and treat the fictional elements as fiction. For example, the first sentence states that "He is one of the so-called eight Great Gods of the fictional continent", when in fact it should say "in the Arabian Adventures rulebook, Kor is described as one of the eight fictional deities who compete for power and influence over the peoples who live in the fictional land of Zakhara, which is the setting for the adventure".--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In my edit of 16:47, 30 January 2008 I have tried to find the balance between making an effort to show that fiction is fiction on the one hand and avoiding cumbersome phrases on the other. I have therefore removed the in-universe tag. I am aware that more real-world context is needed in order to make this a worthwhile article, but I think the notability tag is sufficient to show this. Daranios (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In my edit of 16:53, 30 January 2008 I have incorporated the footnotes and removed the nofootnotes tag. I disagree with you that that improves the article (at least as long as there is no information from other sources present). In my opinion the only positive thing it does is to enforce the impression that there is no original research there - but this could have been assumed in good faith. On the other hand it degrades the appearance of the article. I would like to get more opinions on that (see below). Daranios (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations - Search for more opinions

There has been disagreement (see above) whether the inclusion of footnotes (which has been done in the edit from 16:53, 30 January 2008) improves this article (considering that there is only one source at the moment). I would like to ask anyone interested in placing her or his opinion here. Daranios (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)