Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First steps

OK, i'll be the first.  :)

Following some of the ideas/suggestions on the Improvement discussion, I did the following:

  • I moved "examples in the series" up underneath the "Conception and development" section to help keep the out-of-universe parts together. I renamed that section "Depictions of kender" per Bilby's suggestion.
  • I tossed the remaining in-universe sections into a single section, "Description of Kender".
  • I added a "Reception/critical analysis" header, for when we are able to find such information.

I figured I would get those things out of the way before we look at trimming things out. :) BOZ (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I am deleting the second paragraph which is made up of in universe description and ontains claims that are unsupported by any reliable secondary source. If anyone know which Dragonlance adventure the Kender first appeared as a seperate character type, I would be grateful if they would let me know. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering whether or not it is appropriate to solicit help/suggestions from outside parties on fixing up parts that need citations and sourcing, as the six people involved in this mediation may or may not be able to do it alone. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The more the merrier as far as I am concerned.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A friend shared the following information with me, some of which I am going to use to enhance the introduction:

"Kender first appeared in the Dragonlance adventure module “DL1: Dragons of Despair”.

Tasslehoff Burrfoot was the first Kender mentioned and he was one of the primary characters of the adventure. Published in March of 1984.

In his Dec 1984 review of DL1 in White Dwarf Magazine (#60), Graham Staplehurst referred to Kender as a “nice new race” and gave DL1 8 out of 10 in his review (even if he did mistakenly refer to author Tracey Hickman as “she”).

They are described in the first chapter as (direct quote here):

“The equivalent of a halfling in this world is called a Kender. Kender look like wizened 14-year-olds and, unlike halflings, they wear shoes.”

The are described in greater detail in the later adventures in the series.

The first novel publication featuring Kender was the “Dragons of Autumn Twilight” novel. Published in November 1984.

Again the kender in question is Tasselhoff, one of the main protagonists of the series." BOZ (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you provide more context about Kender with regard to their role within the Dragonlance adventure modules? Do players take the role of Kender or are they non-player participants in the game? It is not clear to me why they were created for the game.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As with many races in fantasy RPGs, especially those not identified as "monsters", they can be player characters or non-player characters. As to the further detail, that I can't help with. In terms of the original modules, I'm not sure if they were provided as PCs or NPCs. SamBC(talk) 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether they are playable or non-playable charcters. In the event that Kender are playable characters, it would also be useful to know, within the context of the adventure modules, if they are:
  1. Template or pre-built characters;
  2. Class-based characters;
  3. Point-based characters; or
  4. Free-form character;
I believe this information would be important in understanding how Kender as a character type were defined.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As SamBC said, "As with many races in fantasy RPGs ... they can be player characters or non-player characters." That is, a player could select a kender for his character, and the game master can also use one or more kender as non-player characters. I don't have any of the modules available to me at the moment, but I have to imagine that they could be of any or all of the types you mention, depending on the context? BOZ (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I can say with fair confidence that the answer, and the meaning of those terms, depends on the module being used and the edition of the game itself. Whether things are points-based, class-based, or so on, depends entirely on the character generation scheme used, which can vary even within game editions. Many modules come with pre-built characters. Some D&D editions have treated alternative races as classes, so a character could be (for example) either a warrior, cleric, magic-user, rogue, elf, or dwarf (original D&D, IIRC); other editions treat classes and races as orthogonal (at least AD&D 2nd Ed, and most D20/OGL games). Basically, this question doesn't pertain to Kender as a race, but rather to the games they are used in and specific modules. SamBC(talk) 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the information on page 66 of this source, can we safely say that Kender are playable characters? I don't know how reliable this source is, but it purports to have been written by one of the game authors (Douglas Niles).--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They are available as playable characters, yes, but not all kender are player characters - it's not that binary. BOZ (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I will take that to mean that Kender are playable characters, but editors can provide details of the exceptions in the article if they wish.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are Kender a Race?

"Kender are a race in the Dragonlance setting, featuring as characters in the novels and available as player and non-player characters in games." How's that? And before you object to the term "race", Gavin, that term is used in D&D and Dragonlance (not to mention just about every other fantasy RPG/setting), so avoiding it is avoiding the term used in the industry, which is generally not a good idea. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You forget that the Dragonlance setting is a primary source, and cannot be relied on in this instance. In the real-world, they are a character type, but in a fictional world they can be described as anything you like: halfling, race, small folk etc. Basically, you have to read primary sources with a pinch of salt, if you get my meaning.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • They're described as races in just about every context; the sections of RPG books giving rules aren't fictional, and they call them races. Reviews call them races (see White Dwarf quote above). Everybody who plays the games or follows that sort of fantasy calls them races. They are known as races. "Character type" is a much broader term, of course, and "race" in this sense may be viewed as a kind of character type, but there are other, orthogonal categorisations within the idea of "character type", such as class (in D&D-style RPG systems), age, archetype, and so on. SamBC(talk) 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Heck, the blank line on the character sheet is labelled "Race".  :) BOZ (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest we agree to disagree and put this point to the mediator. There is clearly a difference of opinion here that cannot be resolved, as I don't think you understand that refering to a character type as a race is a literary trope, not a statement of fact.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point, I'm not sure you understand what a trope is. It's a commonly used feature of fiction. In fantasy, the existence of multiple groups of sentient beings (in some cases they aren't different species, as they can interbreed freely) described as races is a trope. Referring to them as such isn't. It's rather more a convention, and as we are referring to such, we should follow the convention. Do you dispute that non-fiction sources (such as reviews and analysis) refer to them as races? SamBC(talk) 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, it's not the job of the mediator to decide who's right; rather, they mediate the discussion between the parties and, hopefully, encourage meaningful, sensible exchange. Agreeing to disagree is fine, if you can agree to disagree with, as far as I can tell, everyone else on this point, and thus accept that your view won't be reflected in the end result. SamBC(talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That is just your view. WP:WAF explains why you must use real-world perspective to describe a work of fiction, rather than an in universe perspective. If you are uncomfortable about describing Kender as a fictional character type, then perhaps we can compromise on another real-world description that you can agree with. I am happy to compromise on using the term playable characters if that is more agreeable. However, the term race is not acceptable, as it is an in universe term that the authors and publishers use, and we must keep an arms length by writing this article from a real-world viewpoint that is detached from the subject matter for it to be encyclopedic article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pretty much every source calls them races. An independent review quoted above calls them races. Kender are referred to as a race not just be the authors and publishers responsible for them, but by authors and publishers of real-world material that talks about the original material (which is the category wp falls into). I ask again: Do you dispute that non-fiction sources (such as reviews and analysis) refer to them as races? SamBC(talk) 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not disputing them, just your interpretation. None of the sources say Kender are a race and not a character type. Clearly Kender are a character type in the real-world. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • They are a type of character, which is commonly called a race by the authors and by the fans alike. It would not be inaccurate to refer to them as a type of character, but it would be less specific to not describe them by the commonly used term of fantasy race. It would not be unacceptable in my view to refer to them as a "type of character" and in fact that should be noted somewhere, though my personal preference would be to additionally use "fantasy race", the term that is commonly used to refer to them. BOZ (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It would possibly be too heavy handed, but would it be incorrect to say "Kender are described as a fantasy race within the Dragonlance setting ..." - that way the use of the term is contextualized. - Bilby (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That would be too meanderingly verbose. "Kender are a fantasy race in the Dragonlance setting" should do fine; worth noting that they've been imported to others (presumably ravenloft, given the reference to vampire kender in that setting), but not straight away. SamBC(talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Building on that, also acceptable would be "Kender are a type of fictional character, a fantasy race in the Dragonlance setting". BOZ (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If we restricted descriptions to things that are completely valid in the "real world", nearly everything in this article, and just about every article regarding anything in fiction, would need to go. Existing commentary refers to them as a race, so should we. For examples elsewhere in WP, the article on dwarves uses the term race liberally when referring to dwarves in modern fantasy; it may never say "dwarves are a race", but it does refer to them, and others, as such. SamBC(talk) 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Just commenting from a different perspective, when writing in different areas you tend to use the language of the field. Thus when I'm writing in knowledge management, my use of "ontology" is completely different to how I would use the term in philosophy. Similarly, intentionality has a completely different meaning in philosophy of mind to other fields, and I need to swap between meanings depending on context. I don't see it as an error to use the terms in a roleplaying article as they are used within roleplaying, so long as it can be clarified (as per fantasy race) when required. - Bilby (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I would prefer to use plain English term as I don't think those used in role-palying games are always understood by non-RPG experts, but I am prepared to compromise by using the term fantasy race, as this makes it clear this ther term 'race' is a trope by indirect means. However, I think the term 'race' on its own should not be used. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So then, is "Kender are a type of fictional character, a fantasy race in the Dragonlance setting" OK, as I suggested above? It covers both arguments, although rewording it is fine. BOZ (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I agee that is a good compromise, and I have amended the draft accordingly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks good! BOZ (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not comfortable with Kender being portrayed as a race, and I would be grateful if Sambc would refrain from making reference to "race concept" or "race" on its own, when we are agreed that fantasy race is the terminology used both in the context of RPG terminology and in terms of literary description. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I see no such agreement; people have been clarifying that the term "race" is used in this way in fantasy; it is used in other WP articles to refer to such groups; "fantasy race" was agreed as a clarification on first use. Words have different meanings in different contexts, including "tautology" or "generic", and race is used in this way. Wikipedia articles generally use the terms used in their sources to refer to the subject, with wikilinking on first occurence for clarity. Independent sources (such as the White Dwarf review) use the term "race". I don't know how to make this any clearer. SamBC(talk) 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with your approach is that the term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of categorising humans, not groups or types of fictional characters. If you look up whe word race in a dictionary [1], you will see this to be the case. Wikipedia articles generally use the real-world terms to describe their subjects, rather than the many labels applied to them in works of fiction, like race, halfing or smallfellow. When the writer of work of fiction referes to race, they are not making a statement of fact, but are employing a literary technique known as a trope, or more specifically a Metonymy. Just because the term race is used frequently in Dungeons & Dragons articles, that does not mean we should perpetuate this mistake. Therefore I would be grateful if you would follow the real-world convention for describing fictional characters, rather than the in universe convention. Even if you quote a source which describes Kender as a race directly, we are still duty bound to make it clear to the readers that reference to a race is a literary trope for the sake of clarity.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There's several reasons why race should be used. It is used in real-world sources discussing such subjects (such as reviews and analysis); we should use the same term, otherwise it's OR. "Type of character" is a broad term, while "race" is a single orthogonal component within the idea of character typing. The use of race you describe is frequently criticised, as well; however, writers (such as Tolkein) introduced the term in a manner consistent with this. The various races are not, in most fantasy, separate species in one of the main traditional definitions, as they can interbreed. Thus, the term race meaning "phenotypically distinct" (or similar) within a species is perfectly appropriate. Finally, if we can't say "kender are a race", we also can't say "kender are typically short" (or better wording), or any description of their characteristics. SamBC(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In any case, I've requested some mediation involvement with this, as we're clearly getting circular, and I suspect that we both look like we're just getting dogmatic, to an outside observer. I would suggest that we leave it (although other parties are welcome to voice their views) until we get some guidance from Vassyana. Not, I would point out, as to what the answer is, but as to how to move the discussion forwards. SamBC(talk) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I just don't agree with your view; there is no real-world evidence that Kender a real-world race. If they are not a real-world race, then we need to make that disctinction clear by using the correct term, such as fantasy race, even if the primary and secondary sources employ the word race in the context of a trope. However, please feel free to ignore my advice as I am not an expert in this subject matter; perhaps Kender are unique in the world of fiction that they can be described as a race.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's a hypothetical. Say we have an article on a fictional adult male. Is there anything wrong with referring to them, in the article, as "a man", given that it is clear from context that they are fictional? SamBC(talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If the man in question was 3-4 foot high, you could call him a man, but you could not refer to him as a member of 3-4 foot high race men, with the exception of Pygmies. My understanding of Kender is that they are not human, and therefore you cannot describe them as a race.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm just trying to establish some parameters here. Would you do me the courtesy of actually answering the question I asked? SamBC(talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have answered your question, although not the way you would like me to. What is the reasoning behind your question? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm building an analogy. In any case, you responded to the question; you didn't actually answer it. Let me make it more specific. Provided the context makes it clear that he is fictitious, is there a problem with describing James Bond as "a man", or even "a secret agent"? He is, of course, neither in the "real world". SamBC(talk) 10:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is how I would construct the analogy: James Bond is a fictional character, but he is not employed as a secret agent by MI6 in the real-world. Kender are a type of fictional character, but they are not a race in the real-world. You can quote sources that say Kender is a race in the body of the article if you wish, but so say Kender are a race in the introduction is a misrepresentation in my view.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Once again you evade the question, showing a complete lack of respect for me. Please answer; is it appropriate, in a wikipedia article, to describe James Bond as "a man", in your opinion?
  • I think I answered your question very well, and no disrespect was intended. If you have another analogy you wish to share with us, please don't let me stop you from doing so. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

A lot of subjects use specialist phrasings and words that bear only a tangential relationship to the standard use of the word. (For example, I am extremely familiar with philosophy and the meaning of relatively simple words like "intentional" or "cognitive" can be quite divergent from the standard dictionary definition, if conceptually related.) Ignoring the specific context (fictional world/role playing game): How is this generally handled in reputable literature and other encyclopedias? How is this handled in solid quality GAs and FAs on Wikipedia? How should specialist terminology using an alternative slant or meaning (as compared to standard usage) be handled on Wikipedia and why? Please try to keep your answers brief and to the point, avoiding any debate or rebutting discussion. Vassyana (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The Oxford Dictionary Online describes hobbits (a comparable fantasy race) as "a member of an imaginary race similar to humans, of small size and with hairy feet". Merriam-Webster online describes them "a member of a fictitious peaceful and genial race of small humanlike creatures that dwell underground". In each case the word "race" is qualified by an adjective that indicates that they are not a real-world race per se. This is the treatment I propose we use in this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked GAs, FAs, or other sources (yet), although I can point out that Dwarf uses the term "race" to describe them several times in the section on fantasy dwarves. I would say that, as with any in-universe idea, it is worth qualifying the term on first use, as currently in the lead, but then the term should used as it generally is. Gavin's second quote is actually a good support for this, in my view, as they are described as a race, and then several adjectives applied (only one of which indicates fictionality). This shows that the term "race" is used to describe these fictional near-humans in reputable literature, much as one might use "place" (suitable qualified on first use) to refer to, say, Bag End, or Kendermore, or Rivendell, or Ulthuan, or Tattooine, or …; or "man", suitably qualified on first use, to refer to Obi-Wan Kenobi, or Boromir, or … you get the idea. SamBC(talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to the question "how should specialist terminology using an alternative slant or meaning (as compared to standard usage) be handled on Wikipedia and why?", there is an interesting book which discusses race in the context of popular culture which can partly be read online, entitled "Star Trek and History: Race-ing toward a white future" by Daniel Bernardi. What is interesting about this book is that, not only is race discussed from a real-world perspective, but also it uses Star Trek as a means to investigate race in popular culture (page 12). Although the discussion of race in this book is probably not relevant to our subject matter, I do prefer the scholarly approach to disussing fictional topics from a real-world perspective rather than the popularist approach proposed by Sambc of relying an in universe perspective. If we could be clear about how Kender are described so that we don't mistake a fantasy race for Race (classification of human beings), I think this would achieve this objective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another purely logical point that I will point out is that the word "race" is used in the same sense as describing the Kender, and in everyday speech; the term "the human race", which refers to the entirety of mankind as a "race"; race as a unit of division within humanity is only one use of it, and not necessarily the obvious one except in certain contexts. SamBC(talk) 11:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another minor but important point is this: I seriously doubt that any statistically-significant proportion of the readership would be in any way confused or misled by the use of the term "race", especially qualified on first use and wikilinked appropriately every so often (first use per section, perhaps). SamBC(talk) 11:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the authors of the Dragonlance novel series, Tracey Hickman, states (on page 226 of The Annotated Chronicles) that Kender are a variety of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons character class called a thief. If the author uses a real-world description of Kender in his annotations, then I think we should do too. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also in the Annotated Chronicles, page 26, the term "race" is used in these (real-world) annotations. Also page 786, I think that's an annotation (I only have the short text in the search context to go on, page I'm sure about page 26). Other uses of the term "race" in this sense are in (real-world) annotations on page 789. SamBC(talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this for a bit, as I can see good arguments either way. The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't always a common-English equivalent for the particular use of the term. Which is why the jargon exists, I guess. I can think of lots of examples (my thesis, I'm afraid, is very much related to this issue), but I'll save you from them. In most publications, my assumption is that it depends on the audience: if the audience is presumed to be knowledgeable, then the term can be dropped in without explanation. The problem arises when the audience is not knowledgeable, as in a general encyclopedia or news sources. In an encyclopedia, if the term is significant, I gather it is normally "linked" to an entry explaining the use of the term (here I'm thinking specifically of the SF Encyclopedia, which is the only one I have on hand, but I seem to recall that most of the dead-tree encyclopedias used similar means). In terms of Wikipedia, the relevant policies seem to be things like Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. In general, my guess is that jargon should be replaced where viable, but if it isn't then the policy is to help the reader understand the term. I was trying to think of a good example where this was done, and the best I can think of at the moment is Parallel computing which is absolutely buried in jargon. Most of which is then wikilinked to an explanation specific to the field. For example, "instructions" has a very specific meaning in computer science, and thus it is linked to a page explaining the term in relation to the field. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light trimming?

Isn't that a bit much at once? [2] Remember, "Please start with light trimming, taking each step cautiously. Make liberal use of the sandbox talk page to explain the trims and discuss each other's ideas. Take it slow and see what agreements can be worked out." BOZ (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Please feel free to revert any of my edits. I think the removal of the so called infobox is a no brainer - it added nothing to the article. As regards the section "Life cycle"[3], I feel that the removal of is justifiable, as it fails WP:OR and WP:WAF. It is impossible to source this section, as it is basically a personal essay on Kender, drawn from the self-published source, the Kencyclopedia. I hope this is agreeable, as the restoration of this unsourced material is not good idea.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's an awkward point; I think that, generally speaking, the removal of a whole section without talking about it is somewhat skirting the edges of what's safe within the mediation process. We need to be very collegiate and discursive here. On the other hand, I know that if we had discussed that first, I'd completely agree with it. Perhaps some of the content there, if it can be sourced (and I'm sure it can, at least some of it) can be worked in elsewhere, but there's no need for a whole section, it's complely WP:UNDUE. However, we shouldn't be deleting stuff because it's unsourced here, unless we're very confident it can't be sourced; that's why we're separately looking for sources (AIUI). Trim and adjust for style, balance, and so on, here, not for sourcing. We're all agreed that the article is currently woefully undersourced, so removing unsourced stuff would certainly not be light trimming if it carried on. Remember, the purpose of this is that we're aiming to do as much as we can that everyone (participating in the mediation) agrees on, not starting debates again. SamBC(talk) 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What do you proposed doing with the "Life cycle" section, if not to delete it? It can't be sourced, its in universe and does not contain real-world content. I for one am not afraid to make cuts, and I see this as part of a healthy editing process.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, those reasons you give aren't entirely valid; in-universe information is absolutely fine, as long as it's not treated as real and isn't excessive. It being impossible to source is something of an assumption, and not every section has to have real-world content. Those points aside, my point was not that it shouldn't have been removed, but rather that such a large removal should be discussed first, as part of this moderation process. Gavin, your unilateral and disturbingly self-assured actions are one cause of the friction you've been involved in; it makes sense to avoid such during moderation. SamBC(talk) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If you can cite sources and rewrite this section from a real-world perspective, then you have my blessing to restore it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variant kender

The "Variations" section needs some sources; that is, in which supplements and/or novels did these variants appear. Doesn't really need more than that for citing, I figure. BOZ (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think primary sourcing is fine in this case, I think the amount they are mentioned is perhaps a little Undue; it could be condensed somewhat to a prose paragraph mentioning most of the same stuff, rather than the list format it is currently in. The list seems to put weight and apparent significance onto each of the variants, and we have no evidence that they deserve such weight. Some might be better described more fully elsewhere. SamBC(talk) 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would go further: they are not notable so delete this section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd lean towards a short prose piece as well - I've spotted a lot of mentions of Afflicted Kender here and there, and the Ravenloft stuff (if it isn't OR) might be ok. I have also noticed references to Nightstalkers, but not much. As an aside, given that the original concept of halfling was a "half human", and that Kender's are halflings, would not a half-kender actually be a quaterling? - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Quarterling? You might be right - unfortunately, that's original research.  ;) Seriously though, SamBC has a point about turining it into perhaps a single prose paragraph, or perhaps a simple graph (as I think I saw mentioned in an earlier phase of the mediation). BOZ (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The original concept of (and name of) 'halflings', which I believe predates modern fantasy, was that they were half-sized. We are, though, wandering away from the point somewhat. SamBC(talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are.  :) Whether prose or graph, we need sources for the section. I have a big comprehensive index of D&D creatures that I can look through. Let's see... forlorn kender are already sourced, so that's fine. Half-kender are found in "Age of Mortals" (2003) and "Races of Ansalon" (2007). Afflicted kender are in the "Dragonlance Campaign Setting" (2003) and "Races of Ansalon". Marak kender are found in "Time of the Dragon [Rulebook of Taladas]" (1989). Vampire kender are found in "Monstrous Compendium Ravenloft Appendix" (1991), reprinted in "Ravenloft Monstrous Compendium Appendices I & II" (1996), and have a card in the 1992 Trading Cards Factory Set. I don't see Kendar or Nightstalker in the index, but that doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I went and added the sources that I found for these guys; at any point this section can be slimmed into either a prose paragraph or a graphical chart or whatnot. BOZ (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

While the rest of Gavin's edit is good (or at least better than we had, and better than any other suggestion), are we sure that "The first Kender was created by Harold Johnson as a playable character, in a series of role-playing adventures…" is accurate and supported by that source? What was there before was sufficiently vague for me to be more confident, as it gave a real-world origin for Kender as a whole, rather than making a specific statement about the first PC. Further, if there's separate creation for the race as a concept and the first character (be it NPC, PC, or literary), then that ought to be clearer. The old, vague version left it all fuzzed together. SamBC(talk) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you - better to leave it non-specific than to incorrectly source something. BOZ (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the sources quoted, Harold Johnson "developed both the initial concept of the kender and the first representative of the fantasy race, Tasslehoff Burrfoot." If this is not correct, then this statement should come out, but according to Tracy Hickman, he did indeed kick the process off[4]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Horse's mouth, and all. BOZ (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • In that case, we should firstly check that Burrfoot was a PC, and secondly the text should say that he developed the race concept and the first example; to mention only the first example suggests that the race concept grew from the character, while the quote indicates that they were parallel. SamBC(talk) 08:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are spliting hairs. I suggest we move on to the next section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I sourced that one. :) Johnson was playing in the pre-Dragonlance RPGs, and created Tasslehoff as his character when it was, more or less, made clear to him that there were issues with "small, hairy-footed halflings with magical rings of invisibility". So he created the character and the race. That's pretty solid in the sources (I had about three pushing that story, including the one by Hickman, one in Dragon, and some supporting stuff in The Annotated Chronicles). I guess "playable character" is ok, given that he did create the character to play in the RPGs that Hickman was running, and a few of the decisions were based on who Hickman wanted teh world to work (for example, no "race of thieves"). - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since this it is now clear that Johnson created the first Kender, I have amended the introduction accordingly*However, I don't believe he developed the concept of Kender as a character type, I believe that was the work of Roger E. Moore from the sources that Bilby has cited.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, you provided the quote that says the "initial concept" was developed by Johnson, and that his PC was Burrfoot, so I've amended the intro to reflect that. SamBC(talk) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Bilby's sources says Johnson developed the first Kender (or proto-Kender) called Almar Tann. The Annotated Chronicles states the Roger E. Moore "brought life to the character" Tasslehoff Burrfoot (page 25), whilst it was Janet Pack who "defined nature of Kender" (page 26). I have reverted to my original edit. Please do not revert my edits unless you have sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that means that we have contradictory sources, if you were quoting accurately above. That contradiction should be reflected in the article; the origin information shouldn't have so much detail in the lead, and the later section(s) should indicate the contradictions between sources. SamBC(talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That is exactly how I have drafted the introduction.The detail we can go into later.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception/critical analysis

I believe BOZ created this section. Does anyone have any non-trivial content for which they can cite their sources? If not perhaps merging it with another section might be better. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • If we can let that one site for a bit longer, I think I have some sources to start pulling something together for it. - Bilby (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Given as we're not in mainspace, I've started using that section to gather the bits and pieces that can be used; Gavin appears to object to this; either that, or thinks that a review of the first publication including Kender, and what that review said about Kender, isn't worth including. SamBC(talk) 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, this is a sandbox, so it's pretty irrelevant what it looks like at any given time... until it's at the "ready" point, then it needs to be looking good. :) You might want to check the sources page and its talk page for more reviews. I started this section due to a strong response on the improvement discussion; depending on how it turns out, we may want to merge it into another section, but for now I think it would be a good idea to keep it separate as it evolves. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional origin

This section is an regurgitation of the plot from two diferent books, which have been combined together to form a synethesis. The statement that "The Dragonlance books present two alternate and conflicting accounts of how the kender were created" is not supported by any sources; they are neither conflicting or alternate versions, just different. I propose deleting this section.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More light trimming then? I think it would be best to see if we can condense it a bit first. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you have in mind? I should tell you know that I oppose any regurgitation of the plot from the books, otherwise we will end up paraphasing every sentance with the word Kender in it. Unless secondary sources can be found, I would prefer to drop this section althogether. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, since it's a small one-paragraph section, perhaps nothing more needs to be done with it than to source it. The first part is sourced, but the second part needs a source. Unfortunately, not having read any of the Dragonlance novels, I have no idea what the "Tales trilogy" is referring to, so that's what we'd need to know to source it properly. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see it as synthesis. Instead it is a basic description of two different accounts, each one treated as a separate entity. Synthesis would be when the two points are merged to make a single claim that isn't in keeping with either source, such as: "When the Greygem of Gargath was released, its chaotic magic transformed the dwarven army into the first Gnomes,[7] from whom the kender were descended.[8]" - Bilby (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I need to make myself clearer, as this is a subtle point. To say that they are "two alternate and conflicting accounts" is classic synthesis: A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. Neither source cited says this. To make the paragraph consistent with WP:NOR, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on whether these are conflicting or alternate views.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see what you're saying now - yes, I imagine that is a conclusion drawn by comparing the two sources. Would it be enough to say "two different accounts" or "two separate accounts" or just "two accounts"? BOZ (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would agree, but what use is there stating the obvious? As I said before, I oppose any regurgitation of the plot from the books, otherwise we will end up paraphasing every sentance with the word Kender in it. I will go alone with what you suggest, but I don't think this section is worth the effort.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see where you're coming from now - thanks! I won't worry about whether or not that is synthesis or something else, but I agree that the use of "conflicting" is certainly iffy. I'd go with Boz and rephrase it. I like having the section there, though - it seems to me that it would be useful to a reader. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree; there is no point padding out this article with in universe content if there are no reliable secondary sources[5]. Usually primary content such as this would provide context for analysis from independent third parties, but there is none. You are putting the cart before the horse; if notability cannot be established, placing undue weight on primary sources is not appropriate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Handling, Taunting, Fearlessness & Curiosity

The content of these sections needs to be deleted, the sections mergered, and sourced material added. As it stands, this original research, with written from an in universe perspective is just not encyclopedic. 4 quotes from the Annotated Chronicles should cover each of these aspects adequately.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that trimming and rearranging (and sourcing) is needed here; however, nothing that major. We all agreed to work on light trimming. SamBC(talk) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since it is original research, we have to be bold and replace it with source material. The Annotated Chronicles provide coverage of these aspects from a real-world perspective; so we are not without sources to replace the existing content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I doubt that most of it is OR, just unsourced. I also expect that most of it can be sourced, which is the purpose of the other mediation sandbox. SamBC(talk) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, the point of these sandboxes was to do the things that everyone in the mediation had agreed needed doing, not argue about how much to do again. The point was to find the things we agree on, not the things we disagree on and argue about them. We all agreed that some light trimming and reorganisation was needed, so we're supposed to do that, and make progress, and discuss the rest later. SamBC(talk) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you prove these sections are not original reseach? If not then what is it? In universe plot summary? I think we are all agreed that original research nor plot summary from the novels make for an encylopedic article about Kender, and we are all agreed that trimming is required. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Sam is trying to say that the point of mediation is that we are trying to learn to work together, not that everyone else should learn to do things one person's way. If you came to mediation thinking the latter, the process is bound to fail. That said, I'm going to try to marshall some help today in getting the in-universe sections condensed and sourced! BOZ (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am happy to work on a sentence by sentence basis if that is what you are proposing, rather than on a section by section basis that I proposed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • More like paragraph-by-paragraph, but yes. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe content and primary sources

I'm putting this in a new section as it applies to both the immediately preceding sections.

There is no policy or guideline forbidding in-universe content; it would be impossible to cover fictional universes without it. In-universe perspective is an issue, but Gavin seems to be taking an incredibly stringent view of it. Once it is established that Kender are fictional, there is no harm in saying "Kender have these traits".

Also, there is no rule against the use of primary sources; articles as a whole require secondary sourcing, but individual facts and information can be sourced to primary sources provided the text in the article based on such sources make no interpretation or analysis. And there's no problem with paraphrasing primary sources, any more than there is secondary sources. Generally, we summarise them and paraphrase or quote key points. This is considered perfectly acceptable. SamBC(talk) 10:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree with this viewpoint; WP:WAF prohibits an over reliance on an in universe perspective. We need to stick with real-world content, context and analysis written from a real-world perspective if we are to write a Wikipedia article, rather than a Kencyclopedia article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We can write about in-universe content from a real-world perspective; this is what WAF indicates. SamBC(talk) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as we stay within the bounds of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR I am happy to go along with this, but without reliable secondary sources, it will be difficult if not impossible to provide useful content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • NOR makes it very clear that one can usefully source things to primary sources; there has been no support for your insistence that all primary-sourced plot summary is a violation of NPOV. SamBC(talk) 12:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to restore the appearance and life cycle sections to where they were at the beginning of this step of the process. Light trimming is not excision of whole paragraphs. We may indeed pare these sections back slowly until little or nothing is left, but as my arithmetic teacher told me, you cannot skip the intermediary steps to reach a conclusion. BOZ (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Restore the unsourced content if you wish, but I would be greatful if you don't loose the sourced content that I have added in the process. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious, but have you tried seeing if the sources you're using could be used to support the existing content? Such things can be reported on the other mediation sandbox. SamBC(talk) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance and traits

I have got rid of the fist unsourced statement that Kender are "often compared to human children" and replaced it with sourced content from page 26 of The Annotated Chronicles. I hope this is inorder.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The point of this page (and the other sandbox page)

I think we need to clear this up and make sure we're on the same hymnsheet...

As I understand it, the point of the "trim" sandbox is to pare down the page based on appropriate detail and weight, without reference to sourcing, not to remove unsourced material; this is because on the other sandbox page, we're looking for sources, so whether things are unsourced or not is very much subject to change. We all agreed that the page goes into unwarranted detail in places, and that is what we're supposed to be solving here. Not the use of any sort of terminology, and not sourcing. This is just about trimming, not general editing. Isn't this what was proposed by Vassyana? SamBC(talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we weren't supposed to be sourcing information here, looking at the instructions. To quote:

"Good sources"

Let's see what we can find in terms of some good sources about the topic. Full citation information should be provided, along with selected quotes from the source that would be useful as reference material for the article. Please avoid quotes of excessive length, both for the ease of other participants and out of respect for our references intellectual property. Please add each new source to a new section.

"Trimming"

I've copied the current version of Kender to this sandbox. Please start with light trimming, taking each step cautiously. Make liberal use of the sandbox talk page to explain the trims and discuss each other's ideas. Take it slow and see what agreements can be worked out.

"Collaboration"

After we build up some sources and work out a reasonably non-contentious trim, we can work on combining the two in a single sandbox, hopefully to create an article that is tolerable (if not desirable) for everyone involved.

I'd actually find it helpful in trimming to see what can and cannot be sourced; if we can look at the actual source material, it will be easier to guage what information deserves the most weight. But if think we should try just condensing without immediately sourcing, I can give that a shot. :) BOZ (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Re-reading (as I already did before posting, but have now done once more), it seems to me that Vassyana's suggestion (given the points in common in all of our earlier statements) was to trim for style and balance, while finding sources in parallel; doing this gently and slowly should help us all learn to get along a bit better. Then we can integrate sourcing and see what's still unsourced. Given as it's usually expected that people ought to look for sources at least a bit before condemning something as unsourced (even more so before condemning it as OR), at that stage we should try fairly hard to make sure that, if there is a reasonable source for anything, we'll have found it. Given the distinction between "sources" and "trimming", I don't think the idea was to remove everything unsourced, especially as that really wasn't a point in common between everyone's statements. SamBC(talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I not sure that we weren't supposed to be sourcing information either. If we replace unsourced material with sourced material, we are all in a win-win situation, and Vassyana isn't going to stop us; in fact I am hoping for a barnstar "for services rendered to Kender" after this is over :p
    However, perhaps Sambc is feeling excluded from this process? If he looks at the available sources and rolls up his sleeves, I am sure he can contribute something constructive as well. Also feel free to trim where ever you like: as you have probably realised by now, I am all in favor of trimming as well :p--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Adding sources is, of course, a good thing, although it's outside the suggested process from the mediator (not that we need to stick to that). I'm saying that we've already developed friction again, and Vassyana does have some experience at this and maybe if we had kept them separate for now, as suggested, that would be less likely. Oh, and it's not necessary to "replace unsourced info with sourced info"; to turn unsourced info into sourced info is adding a source. Adding new information with a source isn't really trimming, but is still constructive, but removing material just for being unsourced doesn't seem appropriate when we're looking for sources. We're supposed to be trimming and, ultimately, fixing, not re-writing whole sections from scratch. It is unlikely that the original editors would have added information that they had literally made up; they will have gotten the information from somewhere, although conclusions and analysis may have been OR. Thus, in order to AGF for the original editors, and to save effort and avoid wasting such, it's worth looking at the sources we find to see if we can find sources for the information that is already there. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagee with you that removing material just for being unsourced doesn't seem appropriate. WP:V says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed". --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Firstly, this isn't a mainspace article. Secondly, WP:V says a lot more than that, and you'll note that it doesn't say "should be removed". The point of this is partly to get us all working better together, and you're conducting yourself in much the same way you do on mainspace articles in the course of normal editing. Light trimming, discussing changes. Not wholesale slaughter. And the point that it's better to source existing material than to remove it remains. SamBC(talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me know which material you would like sourced and I will see what I can find, but bear in mind it won't be a perfect fit. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light Trimming

OK, back to the apparent original purpose of this page. In this section I'd like to discuss trimming of extraneous text - not extraneous because it doesn't (or can't) have a source, but extraneous because it's just more than is needed to effectively describe them. I'd like to hit each sub-section one by one in the "Description of Kender" section, until we get through all of the un-universe parts. Fictional origin was already handled above, so moving on...

[edit] Appearance and traits

As I write, this section is written as follows:

"In Dragons of the Autum Twilight, Kender are described as "small boned, rarely more than 4 feet tall"[1]. In The Annotted Chronicles, Jeff Grubb describes them as being "wilder than halflings, fearless, sometimes cruel as only children can be...savage, warrior children, ever curious, ever alert"[1]. Like elves, kender have pointed ears and slightly slanted, almond-shaped eyes. Their eye color ranges from green, blue and brown to any combination of those colors. Kenders grow wrinkles at a very young age, and these are seen as attractive by many kender (some kendermaids try to grow them through various methods, much like humans and other races try to remove them).
Kender hair color is usually brown or black, with occasional kenders bearing red/orange and blond hair. Their hair is usually a lighter shade than other races because of all the time they spend outside. A generic kender hairstyle is the topknot, where the hair is grown long and then tied up in a knot on the top of the head. A kender's topknot is usually a source of pride for them. Temple braids are a sign of noble descent among kender.
Kender tend to have high pitched voices, but their body allows them to make a wide range of noises, making them apt ventriloquists, animal imitators, and many other roles. When kender are excited, their voice tends to revert to a normal high pitch, and they speak very quickly."

Not having read through the novels myself or being overly familiar with kender, it is not obvious to me what the most important kender traits are. However, I think the eye and hair color, how attractive their wrinkles are, and too much discussion of their voices can be trimmed a lot or cut completely. I do think the topknot part is a distinctive visual aspect of the kender though, so definitely deserves a mention. The high pitched, fast talking thing is also distinctive and I think we can spare at least once sentence for that, but not an entire paragraph.

It is my feeling that this section can be reduced by 1/2 to 2/3, becoming a single paragraph. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to try and source what ever characteristics are considered unique or important: give me your shopping list! --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Take your pick; I think the topknots and voices thing are their most distinctive traits, but that's just my opinion. You'll likely find this stuff from the earliest appearances. In the meantime, I'll work on seeing how this can be reduced. Been busy so far today, though. BOZ (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would add to this (as worthy of mention either because they're unusual or would just seem odd not to mention): pointed ears, early appearance of wrinkles, and fearlessness; the fearlessness is most important, it seems to get mentioned a lot. SamBC(talk) 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll get to the fearlessness a few sections from now.  ;) Meanwhile, looks like I'm starting to wake people up here... BOZ (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how's this then?

"In Dragons of the Autumn Twilight, Kender are described as "small boned, rarely more than 4 feet tall"[1]. In The Annotated Chronicles, Jeff Grubb describes them as being "wilder than halflings, fearless, sometimes cruel as only children can be...savage, warrior children, ever curious, ever alert"[1]. Like elves, kender have pointed ears and slightly slanted, almond-shaped eyes. Kenders grow wrinkles at a very young age, and these are seen as attractive by many kender. Kender tend to have high pitched voices and they speak very quickly.
Kender hair color is usually brown or black. A generic kender hairstyle is the topknot, where the hair is grown long and then tied up in a knot on the top of the head. A kender's topknot is usually a source of pride for them."

BOZ (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think the ears of Kender are of any significance, but that the only one feature I have looked for so far. I went through both the Annotated Chronicles and Legends, and there is no annotations about them. I think in this instance, a picture would say more than a thousand words. Can anyone get one that will meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria?
  • That's hard to disagree with! If we could get a picture depicting the pointed ears and topknot, we could shorten this to one paragraph. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, you might find what you are looking for on page 54 of the AD&D Monsterous Compendium pdf.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we use that picture, though? BOZ (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If the fair use rationale is given that it is for illustrative purposes, I believe it can be used.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. I've trimmed this section down. BOZ (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fearlessness

  • I could not find any real-world content, except the fearlessness, so I have deleted the unsourced, in universe content which contained weasel words with one of Mary Weiss' annotatations[6].--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to re-add the second paragraph for now. The third paragraph is taken care of by the quote Gavin found. The first paragraph was basically worthless to begin with, as it is speculation and otherwise not particularly informative. Parts of the second paragraph may be salvageable; let's re-examine that; also, we weren't automatically removing unsourced statements yet at this stage. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You might find what you are looking for on page 56 of the AD&D Monsterous Compendium [7]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed: "Kender fight hard and relentlessly, sometimes coming up with unexpected tactics that can carry the day for their companions. They are immune to all forms of fear, including magical fear, and make saving throws against spells and poison with a +4 bonus. When alone and not outfitted in armor, kender cause a -4 penalty to opponents' surprise rolls." Although, I'd also like to see a source from the novels at some point. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That means we have a discrepancy between game and novel that will need to be mentioned (or rather illustrated, rather than pointed out as a discrepancy): in the novels, Burrfoot is apparently made to feel magical fear, but the Monstrous Compendium says they can't. A secondary source discussing the difference would be wonderful, but not needed to just mention that there's two different descriptions. Just so long as we don't speculate on the reasons or effects. SamBC(talk) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We can't say there is a discrepancy per se: that would be synthesis. We can only say that they are different, but I think this point is trivial, and not worth mentioning at all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the fact there's slightly-contradictory information, or the fearlessness itself? In case you mean the latter, I do have to point out that it's generally seen one of the most defining characteristics of the race by players; I can't comment on readers of the novels. ISTR people quoting sources that talked about this being one of the things distinguishing them from other Halflings, which would be a nice thing to comment, but I think editorial opinion is quite sufficient for deciding that it's worth mentioning as part of a description. SamBC(talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Life cycle

Skipping ahead a bit to this section... a friendly gamer here went and sourced as much of this section as he could. Some of it remains unreferenced, and may indeed be OR, but we can worry about that mess later. :) In the meantime, just because something is found in a book somewhere, doesn't mean that extraneous details can't be trimmed... BOZ (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I'd say anything he pointed out as "unofficial" and part of the Kendercylopedia's Kender Handbook is technically OR because it hasn't appeared in any primary sources - yes or no? BOZ (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that it what I have suspected. It is not that they set out to create original research as we know it in Wikipedia, it is just that they don't provide in line citations or make clear what are essays and what is not on Kencyclopedia.
  • With regard to the content from Races of Ansalon, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of generating citations using this approach: its a bit like getting information third hand from a "friend of a friend", although it may point other editors in the right direction.
  • However, I doubt we could still use any of this Races of Ansalon material as it is written, as it is not clear if your correspondent is quoting it verbatum, or it it is paraphrasing. Also the tone is very in universe, and is not encyclopedic. Perhaps the source expresses itself in a different tone? It is not clear if these are direct quotes directly, or whether the RoA is a synthesis. Can your correspondent get some direct quotes from this source, so we can be sure?--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It depends on how much work he's willing to do; I've asked him to do a few things already so I don't want to keep heaping more on his plate. I've never corresponded with him before (that I can remember), so I don't want to be rude when he's volunteering his time to help. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That is one of problems of getting information from a friend of a friend, alas. What we need is one of us go on record here at Wikipedia with the sources direct, rather than getting it third hand. Without direct quotes, I feel uncomfortable leaving this content in until it can be sourced directly by one of us. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So if the same person registered and provided the information here, that would be okay? SamBC(talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes of course. However, BOZ's corresondent has already said that the content from the Races of Ansalon has been paraphrased, so I am not comfortable with it being reproduced here unless we are shown what was actually written first, as I understand its primarily a statistical source for Dungeon Masters, not a story book. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can worry about sourcing the bits of info here when we get to the collaboration stage. In the meantime, I pruned all the bits that "Snifferdo" from ENWorld identfied as from the kendercyclopedia's Kender Handbook, or simply undocumented (it's down by about 1/3). Have a look at what is left; if you see anything in here that is really not important to understanding kender, let's cut that out as well.

"An average kender mother will have three to five children in her lifetime. Kender names are chosen from a wide range of sources, such as recent events or items in pouches, like Bearchase, Lockpick, Fruitthrow, etc., or they are named after an existing relative.
As children, they come to rely on family and friends for needs, and the main contributors to a young kender's growth are often called their grandparents, uncles and cousins, regardless of actual family ties. At around 4 or 5, "kenderkin" begin to take part in their communities and to constantly ask questions. While others may feel this stage in a child's life is the most annoying, it is seen by kender parents to be a beautiful stage in life. Some do not give proper answers, in order to further encourage the child's curiosity. As they age, kender children gain education by hearing stories, desiring to acquire new skills, and playing games. They also begin handling and wandering.
As kender reach the adolescent and teen-aged years, they become more active participants in "Kender Moots," social gatherings where the youth can show off their newly found skills in games and demonstrations.
As they near adulthood, kender experience intense wanderlust and leave home. Most spend their entire adult lives wandering around the world. Most of the population of Krynn has been exposed to the adult variety of kender, and as such have adapted the word kender to mean thief, rogue, or cutpurse. Kender take great offense to these epithets, especially the last.
The Annotated Chronicles cites the Dragonlance Adventures, which states that "Most Kender are encoutered during wanderlust, a particular phase in a kender's life that occurs for most kender during their early 20s. Wanderlust may happen for many years...and is responsible for spreading kender communities accross the continent of Ansalon"[2].
Kender age slowly and often do not realize it is happening, remaining childlike in comparison to other races even when their bodies slow down. When kender die, it is traditional to give something meaningful to their spirit. Funerals are held, at which the people who knew them express their grief, but kender view death as the next great adventure, and don't linger too long on sadness. Kender are usually interred somewhere that was meaningful to them in life or as they died, or simply at a particularly nice spot."

BOZ (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I propose we drop everything except the reference to wanderlust, which I believe is now established through sourcing as trait significant to the plot of the novels. I propose we drop the rest not just because I added that section, but because of concerns I have about in universe content. "Life-cycle" is not a term used anywhere in the Annotated Chronicles or Legends, so I think the wanderlust should have its own section. As regards the other life-cyle content, I think that WP:WAF discourages comparison of fictional characters with humans or animals, as this sort of comparison begs more questions than it answers. Over reliance on in universe perspective means that we are basically regurgitating elements of the novels without providing any context, and in any case I don't see the significance of the remaining content unless someone can come up with a real-world explaination as to why, for instance, Kender Moots are significant to the novel series or the games. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)