Talk:The Wheel of Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
A Wheel of Time Wiki is augmenting this article or related content at A beginning.
The Wheel of Time was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 16, 2007

For old discussion see /Archive and /Archive 2.

Contents

[edit] WikiProject_WheelOfTime

Would any of you you be interested in joining in a WikiProject_WheelOfTime if such a beast were to arise? nae'blis (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My request for http://wot.wikicities.com was approved today. I am a little scared by e.g. List of Middle-earth articles. It is much more comprehensive than the lotr wikicity. OTOH, the dune wikicity seems to be progressing nicely considering how long it has been around, and I can see it exceeding Category:Dune in comprehensiveness relatively soon. And of course there is Star Trek's Memory Alpha. But how can we draw a clear line defining what is appropriate WoT content for Wikipedia? Is there a general policy somewhere that we should try to follow? --Gherald 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm curious why you went this route - the Encyclopedia of the Wheel of Time is already nearly-comprehensive, unless you're hoping to get them to transfer it over to Wikicities. Where is the discussion on this sort of proposal even held? I never saw it... anyway.
Wikipedia:Fiction has some good guidelines on this sort of thing: Major characters from major series deserve their own article only if it makes the main article(s) too long. Looking at the breadth of Category:The Wheel of Time, we'd need to come up with some standards for "major". I'd recommend that they be in more than one book to get their own article, AND advance the story significantly by their presence/absence. Wikipedia seems to be fairly lenient when the articles are well written and organized (see Star Wars, Dune, LOTR), but I found Mashadar as uncategorized the other day, and I had to think thrice before I could figure out who Toveine Gazal was. We need some organization, whether it happens here in a WikiProject or on Wikicities or whatever... I've created an account over there though, just in case.
Also Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction will probably be useful on both sites. nae'blis (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I went this route because I think we need something dynamic to complement the static EWoT, and that a significant number of the articles here are inappropriate, particularly the ones about individual characters.. I think we would do well to limit Wikipedia's coverage to:
  • links from Template:Wotnav
  • articles about _MAJOR_ characters... _MAJOR_ being flexibly defined as those who's narative POV appears in the regular chapters of at least two books, or who's name transcends most of the series (e.g. Dark One and Lews Therin).
I think we could start by moving all `inappropriate' character articles to the Minor characters page (thus reviving it, since it's in a pretty sad state ATM), and cutting them down to size if necessary (at most a 5-7 sentence paragraph should be sufficient). Roughly the same should work for Concepts and Events... Then we can use interwiki links to transparently link to a more comprehensive wikicities entry... for example:
[[wikicities:c:wot:Main Page|Main Page]] gives: Main Page
I thought you were the one who mentioned that EWoT was looking to move to a Wiki-based format once they got their XML format worked out. You're talking about recreating 3000 or so articles just to get to the level of comprehensiveness they already have; without copyright infringement, and without vandalism. EWoT is established and credible; I'm not (personally) interested in fragmenting the WOT community any more than it is. There's already 17 gazillion websites out there trying to explain everything... and I'm not at all convinced of the usefulness of the Wikicities format. Having multiple watchlists just on wikicities.com, for example, is already making me crazy.
I do support the straightening out of the articles that already exist, and merging a lot of the smaller ones into bigger articles (I don't know that the current sub-cats are properly designed; there's a lot of articles thrown into Category:The Wheel of Time as a "catch-all" right now). But if this is where you want to put your energy, I wish you well. Caba'drin misane iro. "We are free men." nae'blis (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You raised this question well yourself, Nae'blis: "How far does this mini-Wiki go, or need to go? Is there an existing WoT-based Wiki out there that we would be better off spending our time working on, rather than bulging one section of Wikipedia unnecessarily?". I had actually thought you'd be the first to appreciate the Wikicity...
I tried to cooperate. The owner of EWoT is writing his own Wiki software that uses XML markup. I have little faith in such an endeavor, do not know how long it is going to take for it to be usable, and have not received any replies to my requests that MediaWiki be given a test drive while we wait, so I decided to start one myself. My original wish was that we work the licensing out to be able to copy-paste freely between EWoT and the wikicity. Yes there are 17 gazillion sites, but no wikis. That's the problem. Am I fragmenting the community? Hardly. It's not a community when only one person can update a site, and they don't answer email.
The basic reason that I want to cut down rather than strengthen the existing articles on Wikipedia is that I will find it far easier to strengthen them if I am able to be able to make some basic assumptions about how familiar the reader is with WoT. It's impossible to do that with a general encyclopedia. Writing something about WoT for a WoT fan's perusal is much simpler than writing something with the caveat that the average Wikipedian clicking "Random Page" not freak out (to say nothing of stylistic requirements, NPOV, stoicness, etc). But enough rambling on my part. I am going to sit back and wait for a consensus... perhaps others, like you, would rather wait for EWoT to get its act together. --Gherald 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Likewise, I hope this goes to more than just a two-person conversation. You're right that there's no established wikis out there, I was probably just daunted by the blank-pageness of Wikicities right now...even the help files don't exist. However, if you want to talk technical details, I can probably help with those (work is too busy to do a lot of article writing right now, and I haven't read KOD yet). Do you have IM or something similar available to you? Drop me an email and I'll keep an eye out: I can sometimes be found on Trillian between 10pm and 1am, Central US time. nae'blis (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Gherald regarding EWoT and other non-wiki WoT sites. I have periodically wanted to put together some sort of database-type system regarding the series, but it's something that works very well in a wiki format. I'm not sure that wikicities is the best place for it (seems a lot more informal), but count me in. Mhoskins 14:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions?

If somebody wants to start an exclusively WOT-related Wiki, I'm in on it. The Confessor 21:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean like this? 206.172.0.196 (talk)

[edit] Regarding The Premise:

I felt that The Premise, as written prior to my major edit on the 17th of February, was in need of major revision for the following reasons:

  • The two paragraphs were so large that they impeded reader comprehension.
  • 'In the beginning, there was' was an unnecessary reference to Christianity.
  • The characters can't name the Dark One. We can, and should, in the interests of clarity.
  • There was too much extraneous information for a bare explanation of the premise. Some details, such as the Red Ajah and gentling, delved too far into plot territory.
  • Shai'tan was never actually freed. He was simply given some leeway in effecting events.

The narrowest definition of the premise would be: the struggle of one incarnation of the Dragon against Shai'tan. This, of course, would be too narrow to include in the article, since it assumes background knowledge that a viewer unfamiliar with the series would not have, and fails to link the series title to the premise. Thus, it's necessary to provide the background, including definitions of the Wheel itself and the One Power, in the article as well.

I'm not entirely satisfied with my revision, however, for the following reasons:

  • I think that the information I retained regarding the Age of Legends and the taint *might* still go a bit too far beyond a dry definition of the premise.
  • That the Creator sealed Shai'tan at the moment of creation has never been definitively proven. Indeed, its inclusion in the mantra which also claims that the Forsaken were sealed as well renders it suspect.
  • The sentence which immediately follows that is a amalgamation of old and new, and it seems fragmented, even though I believe it to be grammatically correct. It also includes 'machinations of well-meaning people,' but I believe that the cyclical nature of the Wheel of Time would not necessarily have provided for motive in each relevant cycle.

Given the complexity of the plot, I believe that details beyond those required to define the premise should be included in the entries for the individual books.

  • If any of you read one of the earlier books with Herid Fel it will tell you quite a bit it also seams to ruin the hole wheel of time after all how can there be a creator that would mean a begining like it says in every book I dont quite get it.
I just have an objection to " That the Creator sealed Shai'tan at the moment of creation has never been definitively proven. Indeed, its inclusion in the mantra which also claims that the Forsaken were sealed as well renders it suspect. " --- it is said many times that the Creator had sealed the Dark One away, in his prison, at the very beginning of the world, but that mankind bored into Shai'tan's prison and released him (or at least gave him much more power than before). After this point, Aes Sedai and other channelers had resealed the Dark One away, which also caused the taint on Saidin; this is when the Forsaken were sealed. And yes, although there ought not be a Creator if the wheel of time is infinite and going on forever, but I think the Creator in this sense is one that created the wheel itself. After all, a wheel may go around in circles forever, but someone had to put it there in the first place.
However, I don't know what warrants changes or what doesn't. I just thought I'd point out that this point, at least, makes perfect sense. -JC 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We should mention the dark one was let out by Lanfear and ??? it says but I only reconised her name and what they were trying to do though they may have known. Also the philospher Herid Fel kept mentioning things which made no sense to me like how there would have had to be a patch since the begining and on and on and does anyone know how come he says "there are neither beginings nor endings to the wheel of time but it was a beginning" That does not work.
'...and does anyone know how come he says "there are neither beginings nor endings to the wheel of time but it was a beginning" That does not work.'
The important thing to note in the quote you're questioning is the "a". So the wheel is infinite and things happen over and over again, but within that infiniteness or repetition or whatever you want to call it there are many singular (though infinitely repeated) beginnings of events. Does that clear it up for you? 198.103.96.11 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Death of the Author

Edit relevant details to include the death of the author....'Cause hes dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellionzod (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A capital idea! 146.151.57.200 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Although more than a few of us are guilty (and feeling guilty) of wondering about the series' conclusion, remember it is pointless to discuss while people are grieving. Rest easy: it is worth noting that Robert joked (or relayed the joke of...) his grave being desecrated if he died before he concluded the series. As he knew he was in imperfect health, it stands to reason he kept readable notes. Be patient.

The important thing is I am sure we are all sorry for the Jordan family's loss at such a young age (he was only 58). He will be missed. Scottprive 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry too much. This is what's on the WOT Mania site.

I talked with Jason about this. He said that Jordan has been dictating outlines and plot lines and everything else related to the final book. He used the phrase "army of writers" to talk about the people that were converting those tapes into written form.

Here is the thread with the information. sdgjake 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a number of threads/blog entries etc since Robert Jordan's death which seem to indicate that enough information has been passed along to complete book 12. What I haven't seen is anything on the prequel trilogy, has anyone out there heard anything or read anything on that subject? 198.103.96.11 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This article has failed GAC. The main problem was that it had no sources whatsoever, except for a link in the lead

  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and is supposed to recap and summarise what goes down below. At the moment about half of the lead is not in the main body. There should be a seection in the main body on the author and the lead should recap this in a condesed way.
  • "#1" is not an appropriate wording per MOS
  • Per MOS, only use the surname on second third fourth usage of a person's name.
  • Needs to be a critical reception section
  • Needs a section about sales, contracts and royalties type issues.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Footnotes/References?

Critical Reception currently ends with "As of 18 September 2007 the series has sold over 30 million copies worldwide.[1]" However [1] links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wheel_of_Time#_note-0 which doesn't exist.

Wheel of Time Miniseries ends with "...has purchased an option to do a miniseries of "The Eye of the World." [2]" However [2] links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wheel_of_Time#_note-1 which doesn't exist. 198.103.96.11 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The second ref you note didn't have a closing tag, so the everything after it was being considered part of the reference. Thanks for pointing this out. sdgjake (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks sdgjake. I guess I should have had a look at the article before just reporting the issue. For some reason when I was looking at it yesterday it just didn't occur to me that it might be something I could fix ... oh well. 198.103.96.11 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Wheel of Time Author Chosen

Check it out: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/10/1752244

I wasn't sure if it was best placed here or on the actual author page. 207.35.115.198 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been noted in all of the relevant articles. sdgjake (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow I completely missed the additions and the fact that the news is actually a few days old. 207.35.115.198 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no one really noticed till yesterday but then it spread like wildfire. And thanks for catching the other headlines towards the bottom of the article. sdgjake (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Hi. If nobody minds, I will try to archive this talk page. It is getting really long. Blackcat52 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

please only archive those sections where the discussion is dead, ie no recent posts within them--Mongreilf (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

the literary concepts section seems full of original research. lots of interpretation of the books without any citations to show this is the reporting of documented interpretation.--Mongreilf (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OR

I Agree I love the series, and I've read all of them and I agree with the summary, but it really looks like OR. I'm striking it out of the article for now. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon reviews

Regarding recent critiques added from amazon customer reviews of book 10. I do not oppose the adding of critical commentary, and actually thought it was a missing component on this page. I reduced it to one citation just because they are not professional reviews and they are only discussing one book, not the series as a whole, which is what this page is about. The poster has added one line back and I will not revert for now, but I would prefer if someone could eventually replace it with some professional reviews of the series, critical or not. Nowimnthing (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)