Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim

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)

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)

To clarify a response to Gavin's question, yes, kender are a playable race (race being one element of character creation). That should be enough clarification in the article, but I will take a peek and offer suggestions if it seems whacked out. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
• On page 154 of Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-playing Games by Matt Barton, Kender are mentioned in the context of the series of "Gold Box" computer games which include the Champions of Krynn as follows: "From a gameplay perspective, the most interesting differences introduced in this series are the new races, classes, and moon-based magic system. The race options now include two type of elves (Qualinesti and Silvanesti) and dwarves (hill and mountain), as well as "kender", a diminutive and highly playful race that resembles Tolkein's hobbit. Kender are the only race that can taunt enemies, driving them into a rage, lowering their THACO, and forcing them to focus their attacks on the kender". In this context, the term "race options" is the key; race is used in the context of a character type, which has a simialr fuction as character class: playable characters are differentiated not in terms of racial characteristics, but in terms of their game-play abilities.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • WP:NNC SamBC(talk) 15:16, 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Its not acceptable to me becuase it is a synthesis, and hence original research.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 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 love ENWorld and miss it dearly. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:35, 6 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)

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)

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)

• Have a go yourself. Good luck! --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Appearance & 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)

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"

• Sandbox: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/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)

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...

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". 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". 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". 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". 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)

• I thought I had proposed this before, but I would like to eliminate all the unsourced in universe content that is either original research, or is a synthesis of various uncited sources. I think we have done a good job of digging up real world content from various sources. None of the other physical traits seem to be important to the games or novels, or at least there is no real-world content saying it is.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• You have proposed it, but at this point I don't believe it was agreed upon. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have a counter proposal? Is there something I can help with?--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the point is, or perhaps points are:
    1. There are active attempts to source things
    2. There's nothing wrong with in-universe content, only in universe perspective, and the current tone is largely in line with similar articles across wikipedia
    3. We don't need a counter-proposal; there's no need to remove anything in particular at this stage, so we remove what there is agreement to remove.
  • Does that help clarify things? SamBC(talk) 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have made good faith efforts to source this section and to provide addtional sources, so I feel we have done a good job so far. However, with regard to aspects such as the Kender's voice, topknots, pointed ears, & early appearance of wrinkles, I cannot find any real-world mention in the Annotated Chronicles or Legends that would suggest they are significant, anymore than, say, shoe size, or sock colour or the absence of freckles. I don't want to play hard ball with you, but I need a counter proposal; I am not prepared to stall indefinetly, waiting for sourced material that may never come. I propose we remove the unsourced material from this section, bearing in mind that it can and will be restored if sources are found later.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Hard ball"? I thought the idea behind mediation was to get us working together better, but a phrase like that seems to imply the opposite. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• So what is your proposal? I am all pointy ears. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have no proposal at the moment; I'm trying to work on this bit by bit as instructed. I used the section header "light trimming" intentionally; if you seek "agressive trimming" instead, you may wish to start a separate section for that purpose, although that would seem to be working at odds with this section. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Gavin. I think you have a point - although some description seems valuable. I guess the query is what are the defining physical characteristics that would help the reader get a picture of what they are supposed to look like. Pointy ears? They probably do matter - when reading the description that part sticks in my head. I'd classify eyes in the same category. Voice might be - but wrinkles I'm not at all convinced of, unless they are somehow relevant to the use of the characters, and I don't see how that could be. Topknots can go either way, I would have thought - I'd lean towards not, but they may help the reader. Normally I'd discount the hair colour completely, but surprisingly I've seen a reference or two to the hair colour when comparing Kender against Halflings, so it might matter. But I'm a tad ambivalent towards that, in the same sense as I would be to freckles. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to remove the part about the wrinkles, but Sam said he thought we should keep it so I did. :) Hair color you might be right (I was ambivalent on that as well), but I think the topknot being noted as a source of pride is worth mentioning. Pretty much, I agree with Bilby on the rest. BOZ (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree some aspects are significant where they are key to the Kender's role within the games and novels, and the sources cited so far provide an indication of this. However, if we focus on aspects on which their fictional development is not dependent on, we are placing undue reliance on an in universe perspective by attempting to play the games and or read the books, rather than letting the readers do it themselves. These characters are a fiction, and not observable in the real-world, so there is no reason to provide a full physical description, and even if we did we will be engaging in original research, as there is insufficient real-world sources to provide this coverage in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Handling

Other than the first sentence, this section is comprised of original reseach written from an in universe perspective. Their "innocent tendency to 'borrow' things for indeterminate periods of time" has already been mentioned in the Conception and development section, to which I propose we merge the first sentence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I will address points 2-7 from the unsourced statements section, here. Here is the relevant text from Dragonlance Adventures page 52. Basically, the entire race has attention-deficit disorder. ;)

Theft vs. handling

The kender concept of personal property and theft deserves special attention. Because many kender develop thieving talents, most people assume they are merely innocent-looking but sneaky burglars. This is just not so. The intense curiosity that kender feel feeds their desire to know how locks can be opened, how to approach people unseen and listen in on their conversations, and how to reach into pockets or pouches to find interesting things to look at. Thieving comes naturally to them—so naturally that they do not see it as thieving.

Kender do not steal for the sake of profit. First of all, they have little concept of value. Faces with a choice between a 2,000 pound steel piece [my ed. note, steel piece is the common currency on this world] diamond and a huge, glittering piece of purple glass, 90 kender out of 100 will take the glass. (The rest will take both but will get rid of the diamond first.) They pick things up out of curiosity and wander off with them. Sometimes the owner of an item leaves before the kender can give the item back, or else the kender becomes enchanted with the item and forgets to return it. While adventuring, a kender regards anything found in an enemy stronghold as fair game for picking up, as such items are marvelous curious and might prove useful later on.

Even if caught red-handed while taking an item, the range of excuses a kender will offer is amazing:

"Guess I found it somewhere."

"I forgot that I had it."

"You walked off before I could give it back."

"I was afraid someone else would take it."

"You must have dropped it."

"You put it down and I didn't think you wanted it anymore."

"Maybe it fell into my pocket."

All of these lines are delivered with an innocent sincerity that is all the more maddening because the kender really is sincere! A kender might not necessarily remember where he found something, even if he picked it up half a minute before, and such responses are often delivered as part of a subconscious defense mechanism. Intense curiosity is a trait ingrained in their souls and minds from their racial creation by the Greystone ofGargath. They cannot be other than what they are—natural thieves.

On the other hand, kender, like everyone else, do not like the idea of someone deliberately taking an item from someone else without the latter's permission. To be called a thief is still considered a base insult. This assertion sounds remarkable in view of the fact that kender constantly borrow things from each other and from visitors (without asking) in their communities. Kender don't regard their idea of borrowing as stealing, however. If they need something, they'll take it. If they see something interesting, they'll pick it up and pocket it. A popular proverb defines a kender heirloom as anything that remains for more than three weeks inside a kender's home.

• Also, on page 53-54 is described a game mechanic for this phenomenon—just thought I would make note of it for amusement. ;) Essentially, the game master makes a chart with 100 spaces on it to keep track of what a kender player character has in his pockets. The first 92 entries are always filled, and the first 82 entries are filled with ordinary items (bits of string, feathers, stones, live mice, marbles, etc.), while the other 10 may indeed be more generally useful. The remaining 8 spots are eventually filled while adventuring, and sometimes might actually turn out to be useful stuff! "When in a pinch, kender often try to grab something from their pockets," so rolling a random result from 1-100 takes an item off the chart. I think this is mostly for a comic relief purposes, but it could actually be useful at times—a piece of gum could patch up a leak, or some marbles could be used to trip a pursuing enemy, or something could get pulled out to distract the kender long enough that the more sensible adventurers can get something done without them getting in the way.  ;) BOZ (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium has an even more succinct version of basically the same text: "Kender have a unique approach to personal property and theft. Their intense curiosity feeds their desire to know how locks can be opened, how to listen in on other's conversations, and how to reach into pockets to find interesting things to look at. Thieving comes naturally to kender, and they see nothing wrong with it; what others might call "stealing," kender call "handling." Kender do not steal for the sake of profit, since they have little concept of value; they are just as happy with a chunk of purple glass as they are with a glittering diamond. Often they pick up an item out of curiosity and forget to return it. If caught red-handed with another's property, they offer an amazing range of excuses: "I forgot I had it." "I found it." "I was afraid someone else would take it." More often than not, kender believe their excuses to be the truth. Ironically, kender dislike the idea of someone deliberately taking an item without the owner's permission; to be called a thief iS considered a base insult." BOZ (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I have reviewed the text from items #2-7 below, and compared it to the above text. I believe statements #2-7 can be rewritten as the following paragraph, and sourced to both Dragonlance Adventures and Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium. If no one objects, I'll copy this and what Gavin wrote below into the sandbox page.

    "As a result of their enormous natural curiosity, kender have an uncanny habit of finding things that have dropped into their pouches by accident, picking things up in the streets, finding "junk", and generally getting things that belong to other people. This art is known as "handling" for them, and is one of the reasons they are very unpopular among the other races of Krynn. Kender don't seem to think there is anything wrong with handling, although this habit is known to get kender in to deep trouble with the owner of an item. The small race, however, does not tend to "find" things like money, gems, etc, as they have little concept of monetary value; a really interesting shaped leaf will hold more value to a kender than a steel coin, because steel coins are everywhere, whereas that interesting shaped leaf hasn't been seen before. Kender oppose actual thieving vehemently, and thus consider being called a thief or cutpurse a great insult to their dignity."

BOZ (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If I were to add, "Dragonlance Adventures and the Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium detail the concept of handling fully." at the beginning of this paragraph, and add a full cite at the end of it, would that be sufficient sourcing? BOZ (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• In my view this paragraph is unnecessary plot detail that provides no context in relation to the novels or the games in which kender feature that we have not already provided through the secondary sources. Secondly, I think we should not use content written from an in universe persepective at all, as kender don't exist in the real-world, so it is not appropriate to describe their behaviour as if they do. Statements like have dropped into their pouches by accident which are themselves a fiction statements is too far removed from the real-world to be included.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• In terms of importance, I think this section matters overall: their "handling" is a key characteristic that was one of the aspects raised by several sources hat was a special consideration during their development, and certainly is a handy plot device. Otherwise, I agree that it is in-universe. This is probably far too unwieldy, but:

As Hickman has stated, his sole contribution to the development of the Kender was their curiosity and their tendency to "borrow" objects. His desire for the skills of a thief, without the associated moral concerns raised by a "race of thieves", led to depicting Kender as possessing a habit of finding things that have dropped into their pouches by accident, picking things up in the streets, finding "junk", and generally getting things that belong to other people — an art referred to as "handling". This habit was justified in Dragonlance Adventures through Hickman's decision to provide the Kender with enormous natural curiosity, a character trait which is also employed to provision the characters with both lock picking skills and a tendency to "listen in on other's conversations". In terms of moral considerations, Kender are described as not believing that there is anything wrong with handling, although this habit may be employed to get Kender in to deep trouble with the owner of an item. In addition, they do not tend to "find" things like money, gems, etc, as they are depicted as having little concept of monetary value; a really interesting shaped leaf is said to hold more value to a Kender than a steel coin, because steel coins are everywhere, whereas that interesting shaped leaf hasn't been seen before. Kender oppose actual thieving vehemently, and thus consider being called a thief or cutpurse a great insult to their dignity.

It's just a thought, building on Boz's version. Feel free to cut it to shreds. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bilby, I think that looks great.  :) Could you incorporate this, which I believe Gavin derived from Mists of Krynn? BOZ (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel really stupid for not including that in the first place - the quotes Gavin sourced are terrific, and, as he mentioned at the time, provide real-world context. Part has already been included, but I'd certainly add: "As a side effect of these characteristics, Kender can be difficult to play within the roleplaying games, as their lack of interest in monetary gain is "a virtual anathema" to the manner in which other classes are typically portrayed. Therefore it was recommended in The Mists of Krynn that Kender be employed as non-player characters, with their "handling" providing a convenient means for those running the game to introduce objects at "critical times"." Bilby 11:26, 3 July 2008

Perfecto.  :) BOZ (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So anyway - I feel that Bilby's version above is pretty strong, and I think that's what we should go with. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Gavin's happy with it as well - I tried to keep his points in mind, and to do things such as avoiding using the term "race". I'll give it a bit to see if Gavin has any problems with the version, and, if not, transfer it back to the document with references added. Time to move onto the next section for a bit? - Bilby (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am finding the discussion hard to follow if only becuase I am not sure which source you are citing in the above paragraph. For instance, where does it say that Hickman's "sole contribution to the development of the Kender was their curiosity and their tendency to "borrow" objectssole contribution to the development of the Kender was their curiosity and their tendency to "borrow" objects"?--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I saw the sourcing as a concern too, in that I didn't think I could source properly on a talk page, and wasn't sure how to handle it here. :) Using Harvard in-line, which I'm more comfortable with than footnotes, anyway, we get:

As Hickman has stated, his sole contribution to the development of the Kender was their curiosity and their tendency to "borrow" objects (Wiess & Hickman, 1999, p. 25). His desire for the skills of a thief, without the associated moral concerns raised by a "race of thieves", led to depicting Kender as possessing a habit of finding things that have dropped into their pouches by accident, picking things up in the streets, finding "junk", and generally getting things that belong to other people (Wiess & Hickman, 1999, p. 25) — an art referred to as "handling". This habit was justified in Dragonlance Adventures through Hickman's decision to provide the Kender with enormous natural curiosity, a character trait which is also employed to provision the characters with both lock picking skills and a tendency to "listen in on other's conversations" (Hickman & Weiss, 1987, p. 52). In terms of moral considerations, Kender are described as not believing that there is anything wrong with handling, (Monstrous Compendium: DragonLance Appendix, 1987), although this habit may be employed to get Kender in to deep trouble with the owner of an item. In addition, they do not tend to "find" things like money, gems, and the like, as they are depicted as having little concept of monetary value (Hickman & Weiss, 1987, p. 52). Kender oppose actual thieving vehemently, and thus consider being called a thief a great insult to their dignity (Hickman & Weiss, 1987, p. 52). As a side effect of these characteristics, Kender can be difficult to play within the roleplaying games, as their lack of interest in monetary gain is "a virtual anathema" to the manner in which other classes are typically portrayed. Therefore it was recommended in The Mists of Krynn that Kender be employed as non-player characters, with their "handling" providing a convenient means for those running the game to introduce objects at "critical times" (Batista et al, 1988, p. 117).

I don't have a specific reference for "this habit may be employed to get Kender in to deep trouble with the owner of an item", although I suspect one could be provided - either from the books or the roleplaying info. But I'm happy to cull that if it would be better, Gavin, as it is true, but being unsourced makes it problematic. The more significant bit, the part Hickman played, comes from the annotated chronicles, and the moral problems with a "race of thieves" is from several sources, but I've used the annotated chronicles again, as it was handy. I'd probably also footnote "Hickman's decision to provide the Kender with enormous natural curiosity" - that Hickman added the curiosity comes from the Annotated Chronicles, but the use of that curiosity to explain handling and other traits comes from "Dragonlance Adventures". - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "this habit may be employed to get Kender in to deep trouble with the owner of an item" may have been mistranslated or something from "this habit may get Kender in to deep trouble with the owner of an item" - adding the "may be employed" part makes it sounds like someone is trying to set them up to get in trouble, whereas without it, we simply have the natural reaction to having items stolen from someone.  ;)

Also, was that actually Hickman's "sole contribution to the development of the Kender"? I don't think the original quote said that, but maybe I just missed that part. I skimmed the source that Gavin's quote appears to have come from, but don't have time to read it thoroughly now, but I don't see where that idea comes from. I got that link from here, FYI. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I love the quote. :) The full quote is: "All AD&D game groups needed a "thief-class" character to perform various abilities and skills unique to them during the course of a game. Still, I was troubled by the idea of a race of thieves. My sole contribution to Tas and his kenderkind was their inveterate curiosity and their innocent tendency to "borrow" things for indeterminate periods of time. It was in part from this admittedly very broad concept that Roger Moore brought life to the character in his short story, "A Stone’s Throw Away," in Dragon Magazine—and launched one of our favorite characters forever onto the face of Krynn. — TRH" (Wiess & Hickman, 1999, p. 25) This is the only place I've found where Hickman lays claim to those characteristics, however the "I was troubled by a race of thieves" is supported by other refs to argue why the "handling" was so important. Clearly a role playing game needs "high dexterity" characters with thief skills, so I can see why this is often one of the few points made in reference to creating the Kender, as it does seem a bit of a moral dilemma for designers of a particular ethical bent. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched out what was there, with what was here. I figure, worst case scenario, we need to trim more out and oh well. At least it's all sourced, and the majority of the dross has been trimmed. :) BOZ (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Taunting

We have just one paragraph under contention here, which you will find as item #9 below in the unsourced statements section. I'm not even sure how much needs to be said about this part - doubtless not much more than what is already said in the second paragraph. Here is the relevant text from Dragonlance Adventures, page 52:

Taunting is one of the few defenses that kender have. Being smaller than most other beings, kender resent anyone who takes advantage of them. a kender could not imagine taunting a fellow kender; after all, they're in this together. Taunting is especially effective if a kender has others to back him up or some trap that a maddened attacker can be lured into with little cost to the kender. Though not very effective against the largest creatures (who will not have their combat effectiveness reduced greatly), taunting can still give a hard-pressed kender an edge in a fight. It is best used against those who are either attacking or are about to attack; there's no sense in angering a potential friend.

And, a game mechanic for the ability, on page 54:

When a kender taunts an intelligent creature who can understand the kender's speech, the creature must make a successful saving throw ... If the creature fails, it attacks the kender wildly for 1d10 rounds, with a ... penalty to hit and a ... penalty to Armor Class because of the affected being's irrationality.

Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium essentially repeats the game mechanic part, but not the text part. BOZ (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, been busy, but I found a few minutes of peace.  :) I took what I found above in "DLA" and mixed it in with what is currently on the sandbox page, and came up with this:

Kender are described as having a very sharp wit and tongue, and as such, are masters at the art of insulting people, with a wide repertoire of insults for any race and any occasion. In Dragonlance Adventures, kender are said to resent anyone who takes advantage of them and will use their ability to taunt already hostile intelligent creatures to cause them to become irrational and attack wildly or fall into some kind of trap.

In the computer game Champions of Krynn, Kender are portrayed as "the only race that can taunt enemies, driving them into a rage...and forcing them to focus their attacks on kender". Tracy Hickman explained that this characteristic in kenders was created by the game group which was creating the original saga. Although they thought it was a simple feature, including it in the kenders in subsequent books proved to be a long-term challenge.

BOZ (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are no major objections, I'll make that change... BOZ (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Where does the line "Kender are described as having a very sharp wit and tongue, and as such, are masters at the art of insulting people, with a wide repertoire of insults for any race and any occasion" come from?--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I paraphrased that from what was in the article already. BOZ (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we can form our own opinions about kender. Either we say nothing, use direct quotation from the primary source, or paraphrase a secondary source, otherwise this is synthesis.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my opinion; I'll rewrite it though. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also on page 52, the paragraph that immediately preceeds the above posted paragraph:

Kender are masters of taunting, sarcasm, and outright rudeness when they are riled. Their intense curiosity gives them shocking insights into the characters and natures of other people, though such an awareness is generally shallow. It is acute enough, however, for a kender to forge an idea of another person's character flaws, giving the kender the ability to create the most stinging insults that can be imagined. Full-scale riots have been started by irritated kender who opened up on someone with their verbal guns.

So let's rewrite our first paragraph as follows:

In Dragonlance Adventures, kender are described as masters at the art of insulting people, using a wide repertoire of taunts, sarcasm, outright rudeness, and insults thanks to the shocking insights into a person's character flaws gained from the kender's intense curiosity. Kender resent anyone who takes advantage of them and will use their ability to taunt already hostile intelligent creatures to cause them to become irrational and attack wildly or fall into some kind of trap.

BOZ (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I like your first sentence as it gives insight into their character, but the second seems to me a random generalisation. Would you argee to drop the second part? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How about cutting it to this: "Kender will use their ability to taunt creatures, causing them to become irrational and attack wildly or fall into some kind of trap." BOZ (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't like it, because it relies on an in universe perspective. If you mention which book or game this idea comes from, I would be more comfortable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring just to the second sentence of the paragraph in question, but I was trying to be brief and less repetitive on the talk page. :) The full paragraph would be: "In Dragonlance Adventures, kender are described as masters at the art of insulting people, using a wide repertoire of taunts, sarcasm, outright rudeness, and insults thanks to the shocking insights into a person's character flaws gained from the kender's intense curiosity. Kender are also described *in Dragonlance Adventures as using this* ability to taunt creatures, causing them to become irrational and attack wildly or fall into some kind of trap.<citation=Dragonlance Adventures, p52, etc, yadda yadda>" BOZ (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that. I'd like to keep taunting in some way, as (along with handling and fearlessness) it is a characteristic that defines them both in fiction and in roleplaying. Given that, referring it back to Dragonlance Adventures makes it less in-universe, but still helps keep the characteristic in play. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have amended the BOZ's last statement to elimate the drift into in universe perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's getting just a tad wordy, but that seems fair enough. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am now The BOZ. I like it.  ;) And we'll go with this version of the paragraph. :) BOZ (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, is there any plot twist or event associatied with these statements? This is were a little plot summary could be interesting, but I am maybe fishing where there is nothing interesting to be found. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any idea, but that would be useful to know! BOZ (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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. --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)

• No, I meant the former. Now that Boz has restored the unsourced material, I must ask it either be sourced, or removed in accordance with WP:V.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been busier than usual all week, but getting back on track... For this section, we originally started out with the following in April:

Many speculate that the two above traits are byproducts of the kender's odd fearlessness. This is a physical trait of kender — they cannot feel fear. There have been incidences where kender have stood near huge monsters and wondered if they could say hello.

Kender rarely feel fear, and most only feel it through magical means. For example, one of the most famous kender, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, has felt fear through magical means — at Shoikan Grove, after being subject to dragonfear. This fearlessness results in an almost permanent optimistic attitude and smile. Because literally feeling no fear means not being restricted very much, kender are always willing to try new things, whether that means traveling to a different place, playing a new game, learning to ride a dragon, or even dying an interesting way.

The kender mentioned above, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, is one of the few kender to ever experience real, non-magical fear. However, as Tas described it, this was not because of fear for himself, but for those he loved.

That first and third paragraph have been subsequently removed, so only the second paragraph remains, which you will find as item #10 below in the unsourced statements section. I have already quoted above what is said in the Monstrous Compendium about kender fearlessness, so here is the relevant text from Dragonlance Adventures, page 51:

The fearlessness that all kender possess gives them a strong sense of confidence. They are quite carefree or matter-of-fact about a situation, even if things look hopeless and grim ("No sense in running away now. There's 500 goblins surrounding us!"). Kender react effectively to dangerous situations, fighting hard and fearlessly. They sometimes come up with some bizarre tactics that may carry the day in battle. But even kender don't let their fearlessness get in the way of self-preservation—most of the time.

Kender appreciate the need for caution, but their uncontrollable curiosity gets them into trouble on adventures. They forever have to check out unexplored places and peek into dark corners. They have no desire to be the second or third person to enter the Caverns of Unspeakable Doom; they want to be first. Pointing out that no one ever returns from the Caverns of Unspeakable Doom has no effect. In fact, describing what makes the caverns so unspeakable might make him or her determined to go to the caverns at once. ("An evil archmage and an army of ogres? Wow! Let's go see 'em!") Some kender might allow their curiosity to overcome their common sense when facing unusual opponents, such as dragons, though they eventually learn to run when running is best.

A kender's fellow adventurers often have to teach him that certain things have big, nasty teeth and that avoiding these things is often in the kender's best interests, regardless of what the kender's opinions are in the matter. Whenever a kender displays an inordinately sensible attitude about danger, it is probably because the kender realizes that continued curiosity will ruin any further chances of doing exciting things ever again.

Similarly to what was found in the Monstrous Compendium Dragonlance Appendix, Dragonlance Adventures also describes the game mechanics for this trait, on page 54:

The kender's fearlessness grants him immunity to natural fear emanating from monsters such as dragons, androsphinxes, and demons, and to magical fear generated by wants or created by spells.

• I had last been working on this section when my attention was diverted. BOZ (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• And here we are still.  ;) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• So can we delete the unsourced content (i.e. the first paragraph) and replace it something along the the following lines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Monstrous Compendium, kender are attributed with fearlessness that "grants him immunity to natural fear emanating from monsters such as dragons, androsphinxes, and demons, and to magical fear generated by wants or created by spells".

I wouldn’t say it in quite that way; also the quoted sentence was from Dragonlance Adventures rather than the Monstrous Compendium. The MC quote, looking to what I posted above on 10 June, simply says "They are immune to all forms of fear, including magical fear" – I'd rather say that first anyway than going into specifics right away about which monsters do and do not cause fear (as this could have changed from one edition of the game to another). Also, I do think that "wants" was supposed to say "wands" as in magic wands – my fault.  :)

So, how about replacing the unsourced paragraph with:

• The Monstrous Compendium Dragonlance Appendix states that kender are "immune to all forms of fear, including magical fear." Dragonlance Adventures mentions specifically that a kender "possesses immunity to natural fear emanating from monsters such as dragons, androsphinxes, and demons, and to magical fear generated by wands or created by spells." The book goes on to state that the "fearlessness that all kender possess gives them a strong sense of confidence," and that they "forever have to check out unexplored dark places and peek into dark corners."

I think that sums it up quite well, and gives the reader a perfectly good understanding of how this works, both from an in-game and out-of-game perspective. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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".

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)

• I'll address this sometime this week, as time allows for me to do so. In the meantime, I ask kindly for your patience. BOZ (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how the removal of original reseach affects you input, and any content that is cut can be restored. Since this article is a sandbox, I don't feel we are constrained in this way. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A lack of sources doesn't mean OR. It means a lack of sources; it's a problem per WP:V if anything, unless there's actual evidence of OR. This was supported by third opinions at WT:NOR the last time we had this disagreement. SamBC(talk) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably an odd question that has no real answer, but I was looking at what I would want to keep from this section, and I didn't have much of a handle on it. My problem is that I don't know what the purpose is. I don't mean that it doesn't have one, but I'm curious as to what the audience would want to know from this section. For example, I can see "Appearance" helping people to picture what the Kender look like, and this is a good thing. Similarly handling, taunting, fearlessness and curiosity are defining behavioral characteristics, so I can see how they help the reader picture how Kender are supposed to behave. I agree with Gavin that Wunderlust is also important, as, if nothing else, it is a key behavioural characteristic (as well as a handy plot device). Some of the life-cycle section, such as funerals, upbringing and the like might be important, if it is important to understand Kender culture/society and if they help that purpose. But if that is the case, I might be inclined to suggest renaming it Culture or Society and focusing on the text from that direction. If, however, knowing about "life cycle" is important, then it can be trimmed in a very different way. I think we tend to forget about purpose on WP too often. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed; we should consider what is useful and/or interesting to readers, provided that we don't then give undue weight to minor aspects. I suspect that our readers will be interested in appearance and the traints; I think "life cycle" would be better refocussed on culture/society aspects, rather than sounding like a biology textbook. SamBC(talk) 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I could only imagine what the person(s) who added that section was thinking. I personally know so little about kender that I don't know how important this info is to understanding them. Redefining the section sounds like a good idea, particularly a rename (Culture/Society sounds as good as any). Wanderlust sounds like a key component, but as to the rest I can't say. I'm not averse to cutting things out of the section (and quite possibly, lots of things), but let's talk about what needs to go and why (not being sourced, as I recall having discussed earlier, was not something we were considering for the sole reason for removing things at the moment) such as what is and is not important in understanding kender. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed; let's worry about usefulness, and undue weight, and not sources for now. SamBC(talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I can imagine what the person(s) writing this section was thinking: they thought Kender are a race which can be studied as if it were the subject of a sociological investigation. The problem with this in universe persepective is that Kender don't actually exist; what does exist is the writings of the authors (as described by the Annotations) and studies of their writings (in reliable secodary sources). The persons who added this section fell into the trap of imagining that Kender are real. However, in universe content cannot be a substitute for real-world content, context, analysis and critisism in an encyclopedic article - this section really needs to be cut.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I sincerely doubt anyone actually thought that, and I cannot believe any reasonable person reading any part of this article would think that Kender are real, or than any author or contributor thought they were or asserted that they were. There's no problem with in-universe content, only inappropriate in-universe perspective. There is no wiki-wide consensus, or even local consensus that I've seen, that says that the only plot (or other in universe content) to be included is that which is necessary to provide context for sourced analysis, either. SamBC(talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me put it another way; this is an article on Kender, not on the critical and analytical reception of Kender. That's a part of it, but not all of it. SamBC(talk) 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• If this were Wookipedia I would agree with you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Where exactly do you get the idea that wikipedia shouldn't cover fiction or fictional topics? SamBC(talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Of course Wikipedia should cover fictional topics - its a very important subject area of human knowledge. However I disagree that the approach to writing an encyclopedic article that allows an over reliance on in universe content, particularly if it is unsourced original research.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so, looking at the cuts section as I proposed above at 17:31, 11 June 2008... (and, FYI, that cuts the section down from 547 to 391 words already, a "savings" of 156) It seems to be time to examine what should and should not be kept from that part.

Based solely on how the text helps a reader understand kender:

• It seems we all agree that the wanderlust part of critical to retain for any sort of Culture/Society section, so let's leave that.
• We could probably cut how kender mothers have babies and such.
• I do think the naming conventions part is important.
• The paragraph on kender childhood, I have no feelings on. It should definitely be shortened if retained, as it is over-detailed. If we agree to remove it, I don't mind.
• The adolescent/teenage years part seems like it should be important, but I am not sure. Perhaps this single sentence can be merged with a shortened version of the previous paragraph about childhood?
• The aging and death paragraph is overlong, like the childhood paragraph.

Perhaps we could cut the "life-cycle" aspect down to a single paragraph detailing childhood development through death, with maybe a second paragraph containing the wanderlust quotation and explanation? BOZ (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please feel free to make any of the cuts I have already suggested. However, I am concerned that we should not set a precedent by allowing orginal research to remain. I think we should be bold, and take it all out, as it is impossible source the viewpoints of others without the sources being specified through the use of inline citations.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that, if someone adds content without giving a source, it is impossible to find a source for it? SamBC(talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• If it is their viewpoint, yes.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And how do you know if it is their viewpoint, rather than them simply not bothering to mention their source? SamBC(talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• If it does not quote directly from the games or books, even if it has been paraphrased (i.e. plaigarized), then its original research.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think I see where you're heading, but I think you may have gone a tad too far along that line. If it quotes too heavily from the original it starts to border on plagiarism/copyright violations. Paraphrasing is the only real method of avoiding it. However, you had a good point earlier about pulling multiple sources together to make synthesis in regard to "Fictional origin", which reminded me of how careful the wording needs to be. :) Given that, we would need to be very careful here not to wander into OR - I just don't see paraphrasing as necessarily OR. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, if that's what you think, that explains a few things. However, that's most emphatically not supported by guidelines and policy. Paraphrasing is the usual way of doing things, with occasional quotes; often, the quote goes only in the reference footnote, and equally often, there's no quote. Should we get clarification of this on WP:OR? SamBC(talk) 09:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• To give another example, I happen to know how anti-reflective coatings on lenses work. I know this from a university physics course. If I were to create an article on such coatings and describe it, in my own words and with my own diagrams, this would not be OR even if I didn't quote sources, as I am just regurgitating what I got from a reliable source. It would simply be unsourced, which is a different problem. SamBC(talk) 09:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, there are no occasional quotes in this unsourced material - its all original reseach, not supported in any shape or form by citations. We have a third hand opinion from BOZ's correspondent that some of this content might be based on Races of Ansalon, but this is inadmissable here and sourcing by hearsay fails WP:V. Therefore there is no reliable evidence, such as in line citations, that this material is paraphrased from primary sources; material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source is original research, there can be no dispute on this matter. Secondly, your example of an article about anti-reflective coatings based on a reguritation of your university course is an example of primary research and fails WP:NOR, because the source of the article would be once or twice removed from the original sources, i.e. it would be based on your personal recollections of your lectures.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• (Actually, "my correspondent" appears to be Sean MacDonald, who ought to know the contents of Races of Ansalon, and provided page numbers on where the information can be found in the book - I was assuming good faith that he is telling the truth.)

• I am sure he is telling the truth too, but I think he would understand that hearsay fails WP:V. If he had posted verbatim quotes from those sections here on Wikipedia, I would welcome this source with open arms. I would prefer we just dropped this content, as I don't want to appear to be questioning his veracity. However, we could leave a note on the article talk page about this source, or make reference to it in "Further reading" section; I think this would be useful for someone who did want to conduct research into Kender.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Firstly, your reference there is to something that is, at best, an essay. Secondly, it doesn't support your point. To quote:

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

• Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed but may be attributable.
• Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable

• • While there is thus no proof that it isn't OR, there is no reason to assume that it is; it is unsourced, not necessarily unsourcable. The same token applies to my example. It would be easy for me to get hold of a university physics textbook covering optics, check that what was written agreed with it, and give that as a source for what had already been written. A lot of people spend time on wikipedia adding sources to articles without changing the content because the content that was there is supported by the source they add. Adding material that you know because you've learned it from reliable sources, but don't give a source for, is not original research, or original thought, it's just bad sourcing. SamBC(talk) 10:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• The key here is that the burden of proof falls to the editor who adds or restores content to provide citations - see WP:V. In the same way I cannot prove a subject is non-notable, I can't provide proof that content is not attributable to a reliable source; the evidence must come from the other direction. If there are no citations, you must provide them as hearsay is inadmissable; without evidence of attribution the content is deemed to be unattributable original research.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I understand your logic (without agreeing with your conclusion), that doesn't stand up to existing policy and guidelines; the discussion previously on WT:NOR agreed with what I'm saying, and if your argument were generally accepted we wouldn't have tags and templates to mark things as "unsourced" rather than OR. If I wrote an article on anti-reflective coatings based on unpublished research I'd done, or by working it out from first principles, it would be OR; however, if it makes sense and there's no direct evidence to to contrary, the presumption is that it is unsourced until there's been a decent search for sources. There hasn't been a thorough search for sources for the existing material here, although we have found evidence that there are sources for it. SamBC(talk) 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• On this point i think we will have to agree to disagree; in my view, this unattributed content clearly fails WP:OR. However, I think we are agreed that the unattributed content fails WP:V and its in universe perspective fails the style requirements of WP:WAF; for these two reasons if nothing else I hope we can agree to cut this material in full; I feel we would be doing a disservice to potential readers by retaining material that is at best a bad example of plagiarism.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I can certainly see your point. However, I have less of a problem with in-universe content - I figure that some is needed, simply to understand aspects of a given element of a work of fiction. My problem is with too much in universe content, or simply with unnecessary in-universe content. I certainly think gestation comes under unnecessary, as does a lot of this section, and I'm leaning towards the suggestions from Boz and SamBC on what to cut. Of course, if there prove to be no sources, as you argue it will be, it should all be dropped in the end. - Bilby (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed; but no sources now certainly doesn't mean no sources exist. There is some chance that it will turn out that some of this was partial-OR by combining various primary sources in improper synthesis, but if that's the case there's usually something salvageable. On the question of in-universe perspective, that's generally easy to tweak, as outlined in WAF, by adding real-world context information (such as "in such-and-such a book," just before a declarative phrase). However, for now, we're trimming rather than fixing tone. If we do that as we go it's great, but it's not required. We're trimming stuff that shouldn't be here even if it has a source and the tone were fixed. SamBC(talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• No hassles from me on that score - I'm just thinking long term. Trimming is good. (I am expecting to find sources, btw - this section reads like something I'd expect in a game manual). But while I agree with you about in-universe style, I'm not so sure that WAF talks with enough clarity about in-universe content. We could take an article, run through it, and add "in the book it is stated" throughout, and that would fix the tone (in a manner of speaking), but wouldn't help with an over-abundance of in-universe content. I'm inclined to agree with Gavin that in-universe content poses a problem - I just disagree (I think) with the severity of the problem, and believe that it will be often necessary even without direct real-world context. Still, it seems like a philosophical/definitional debate at the moment - let's see what it looks like after trimming. :) I'll start to give it a shot as soon as I can escape from C#. - Bilby (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was about to take a hack at it (literally), actually.  :) BOZ (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on wanderlust; also on birthing etc, as that seems rather trivial. Naming conventions if well sourced (even to a primary source, frankly, any reliable source). Childhood doesn't seem important to me, and the teenage maybe keep a short version of for context. Agreed again on the late-life stuff. I think it should all come down to about two paragraphs. SamBC(talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Two paragraphs sounds about right. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this? I figure it gives a good overview of the life cycle without the sprawling text it had previously.

Culture and society

"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 begin to take part in their communities and to constantly ask questions. 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. Kender age slowly, remaining childlike in comparison to other races even when their bodies slow down. Kender view death as the next great adventure, and don't linger too long on sadness. (Races of Ansalon page 138-139)

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.(Dragons of Autumn Twilight) 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"."

BOZ (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I like that, although some seems a bit in-universe in style. It could do with a qualifiers to keep teh fictional content clear. I'm also just a tad concerned that "items in pouches" lacks a bit of context - "items they found in their pouches" perhaps? - Bilby (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. For adding qualifiers to reduce the in-universe style, do you mean, "As described in Races of Ansalon, kender..." or did you have something else in mind? BOZ (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• If no one objects, I'll do the trimming on this section today. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue pressure - is mediation working?

I'm sorry, did a deadline appear from somewhere? Gavin now seems to be insisting with imminent compliance with his own interpretation of policies and guidelines. His recent posts elsewhere indicating that he still feels that this fails WP:N and his suggestion above that he is prepared to play "hard ball" also don't entirely speak to good faith pursuance of the goals of this mediation. I had been noticing improvements in Gavin's ability to work with those he disagrees with here, but recent posts make me concerned for the possibility of reasonable completion of this mediation. SamBC(talk) 14:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to ask Vassyana if there is anyway we can break the current impass regarding the removal of unsourced material. It seems my fellow editors are reluctant to cut any content from the article, regardless of the fact that it falls foul of WP:NOR. There is no dealine per se, but I am reluctant to allow original research to remain in the meantime. Also, Kender is a subject for which the number of real-world sources is limited; if there was an abundance of real-world sources, writing this article would not be a problem. In fairness to me, I have added primary and secondary sources and have actively helped to improve this article. Once the original research has been removed, I feel we have the makings or a reasonable start class article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess this comes back to what is NOR and what is just still waiting on sources. You've done a great job on that btw, but I think we could source a lot of the claims about appearance and similar topics over time. Although there's still quite a bit that would warrant culling. I'm less worried about leaving in suspect material for now, though - this isn't a BLP issue, so while it may need to go eventually, it doesn't do any real harm in the interim. - Bilby (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• As I've indicated, and has been supported by third opinions on WT:NOR, a lack of sources on its own does not indicate original research; it indicates a lack of sources. And I am happy to say that you've done great in provided sources. The concern about posts elsewhere indicating you're unhappy notability-wise still concerns me. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also, there's no "reluctance to cut any content"; we're all trying to move ahead with light trimming with thorough discussion, as Vassyana suggested. SamBC(talk) 14:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that we most certainly have agreed on cuts. Text has been removed after discussion, and there have been some additions by Gavin. We are hardly done yet. I am planning to work more on trimming this week, although I was busy towards the end of last week and over the weekend. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Touching base

To you, what's the greatest sticking point in trimming down the article? What material is causing the most disagreement? What specific bits would you like to trim or keep that others disagree with, and why? Vassyana (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally am only having difficulties in judging what is important or not important enough to describing kender, due to my unfamiliarity with the subject. I have sought outside help to determine this, but it has been slow in coming. I'm not concerned with losing any specific content, but I don't want to remove anything which provides a better understanding of the subject without going into too many extraneous details. I'm also not particularly concerned with finding a non-primary source for every single sentence, which seems to be a sticking point for only one of us. The material causing the most disagreement seems to be, well, just about everything that was written in the article when mediation began. BOZ (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that content that is not supported by primary or secondary sources should be removed on the grounds that it is original research. I have listed all the items below in an appendix to this section. The content includes opinions about characters, locations and artifacts which are treated as facts, whereas the subject matter is actaully fictional. Collectively this content fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and the style it is written in fails WP:WAF. Furthermore, there are no real-world sources cited that would indicate that any of this content is non-trivial or provides a better understanding of Kender, and so fails WP:IINFO as well.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, WebWarlock. Unsourceable to primary sources? I think not. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are these sources verbatim quotes or are a synthesis of the primary sources?--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• No. They are attributions from the material. Web Warlock (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I will take that to mean synthesis.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer to assume good faith; Gavin, rather than assuming that the sourcing is not being handled properly, why not have a look at the source material and make an objective judgment? BOZ (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I will take that comment back. I know this sounds pedantic, but what is needed is verbatim quotation: this form of attribution means we are still getting the primary sources via hearsay. Any opinions based on primary sources are for the reader to make, not for us. If verbatim quotations can be provided, then we are free to quote the primary sources directly. Following on from the example of writing an article based on university lectures, I would rather we do not follow this path; we need to quote primary sources directly, rather than provide them second or third hand in the style of The Kencyclopedia to avoid any accusation of synthesis or plagiarism.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with creating an article mostly out of quotes from primary sources, as pointed out above, is that at some point you run the risk of committing plagiarism anyway. Different quotes from different sources is less so, but still runs the risk of being plagiarism. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• We can't be guilty of plagiarism if we source by verbatim quotation. However, you have a valid point that we can't build an article on primary content alone: it should only be used to provide an impression of how Kender are portrayed in the games and books. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For me, the biggest sticking point is time - this started too close to the end of semester, but that, at least, is a situation that is improving. Otherwise, we're still getting stuck on the distinction between lacking sources, impossible to source, OR and synthesis, and the need to remove material that falls under one of those categories. In terms of what to remove, I admit I'm a bit stuck on the nature of the target audiences - what are people looking for when the come to the Kender article? There's a lot of material - such as the weapons which we haven't really hit yet - that I'm not sure of the value of, but it might be valuable depending on what the purpose of an article such as this is. On the plus side, I think the article is slowly improving, and I really do enjoy editing with other people. Plus Gavin's been finding some excellent references. - Bilby (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that any material Gavin has added so far has been purely beneficial to the article, and I would be truly pleased if he would direct his energies on Wikipedia in this way more often. BOZ (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Bilby, the target audience is seeking real-world content; fantasy content can be had at Kencyclopedia. I am happy to use verbatim quotations from the book, but it needs to be in support of real-world content. In theory, the quotes from the Annotations have provided an indication as to what kender attributes have had an impact on the development of the games and novels, and my feeling is that we have covered the key points. If Webwarlock can provide verbatim quotations, we could use them to illustrate these points or to provide a flavour of the games or books. However, outside of these,potential additions, this stuff is random, fails WP:IINFO and will end up taking away the focus from the characters real-world development, which in this case has turned out to be an interesting story.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting curious as to what is meant by "real world" content. When I read an article on a fictional element, I guess personally I like to know things like the history of how it was developed, how it fits into the book/film/whatever, what people thought about it, and enough of a description so that I can understand the relevant aspects of it as it is portrayed. I suspect that this is all in keeping with what you've been saying? But that last one is, if I understand things correctly, not what you would regard as real-world? Whatever happens, I think we'd probably both agree that minutiae of the character which doesn't assist in any of that is, at best, questionable. The bit where I have trouble is working out what is relevant to an understanding of the character, and what is just trivia that isn't of significant value. And that, of course, depends a bit on what people are supposed to get out of the article, and whether we're talking about an educated or uneducated audience. - Bilby (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• The answer to this question can be found at Wikipedia:Waf#Real-world_perspective. Essentially we should be dealing with kender as if we were observing them from outside the fictional world in which they inhabit, as an object of the narrative, rather than treating their fictional existence as real. This is a very big problem in most Dungeons & Dragons character articles; the boundries between reality and ficition do not seem to be understood, possibly because the D&D promotional material relies heavily on an in universe perspective. What is relevent to our understanding of the Kender needs to be clearly pointed out to us by a reliable secondary source such as The History of Computer Role-playing Games, or primary source that contains real-world content, like the Annotations. If the relationship between an object in the narrative is not clearly stated in this way, then it does not pass the sock colour test: if it does not pertinent to the characters context, critisism or development, then it is not real-world, and like the colour of their socks, it may be important in their fictional world, but not to our understanding of Kender as fictional character per se.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you're taking an unusually strict view of the meaning of that bit of WAF. Look at Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Pauline Fowler, both listed as "exemplary" articles at WAF. We see in these articles such as "Hercules' power gives Captain Marvel incredible amounts of super strength; he is able to easily bend steel, punch through walls, and lift massive objects. Marvel's strength rivals that of Superman." SamBC(talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Move all of the unsourced material to a subpage (such as Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim/Sourceless). First, review the removed material and determine if any of it could be considered uncontroversial assertions and facts. Put those back into the draft if everyone agrees they are so. As a next step, try to identify material that in all likelihood has sources available to support. Put those back into the draft if everyone agrees they so. For the remainder of the material, put it back into the draft as it can be sourced, but not before.
• Purely from the perspective of a sporadic GA reviewer, I would recommend avoiding lots of quotations. It's generally considered poor style. However, I would recommend sharing quotations on the talk page, so that everyone can agree the article text appropriately reflects the primary sources cited. That would help address the concerns stated without cluttering up the draft with excessive quotations.

Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We could give that a try. In the "unsourced" material, would you include things which have been sourced to primary material by WebWarlock on the Kender talk page, but have yet to be cited on the trim page? If "everyone" has to agree on putting it back in the draft though, I fear your suggestion may become an exercise in futility as Gavin has already stated that he does not want to see any material which is not sourced according to the methods he has outlined. If he could demonstrate some willingness to compromise, your suggestion would definitely be worthwhile to explore. BOZ (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where I have added content, I have gone to the effort of providing vebatim quotations for the sake of transparency and to avoid misunderstandings about that the opinions expressed in them, and I would feel more confident about the unsourced content if we knew what was behind it. However, if Webwarlock has stuck his neck out to provide attribution for statements made by other editors, then I am sure we can agree to use it if we can at the very discuss my concerns. I can see where BOZ and Bilby are coming from and I am confident we can negociate a working compromise, even though I am uncomfortable about using third hand content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm definitely more comfortable with that then, though I'd like to hear what Bilby and SamBC have to say. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No hassles from me - sounds like a good idea. I also share Gavin's concerns with using sources that I haven't read myself. It isn't so much a problem of not trusting others, but if I haven't read the source I have to assume that my interpretation of their interpretation is an accurate representation of the original, and that is one step too removed for me to use it. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But given that this applies to any source, I assume you would trust another user's use of a source they have read (and preferably have in front of them)? SamBC(talk) 07:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. What I mean, I guess, is that if someone has the source and using it edits a Wikipedia article, then I'm 100% happy with that. No problems at all. But if someone reads the source, and summarizes it, passing the summary on to me, then I don't feel comfortable using it myself. Not because I don't trust them, but because what I write will be my understanding of their summary. Not my understanding of the source. I'd add that the same holds for published sources - if a published source summarizes someone else's argument, I'd find the original to compare it against, if at all possible. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So if someone else takes existing countent without specified sources, and gives references to support it, that is presumably also fine. 'cause AFAICT, that's what WebWarlock did in this case: quoted (or possible occaisionally paraphrased) article text and gave attributions for them. SamBC(talk) 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he just copied and pasted whatever Gavin posted below. It looks like he has sourced the majority of it, so it may just be a matter of determining the importance of each item. Just a note, UrsaSapien still appears to be out, and Jeske has been uninvolved with this stage of the mediation; shall we assume we have consensus to proceed? BOZ (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe everyone active agrees at this point and it would be reasonable to move forward on this. Vassyana (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to SamBC - yes, that is perfectly ok with me. I completely trust WebWarlock. But to use those references further, I'd either need to get WebWarlock to do the referencing/expanding, or I'd need to get access to the references. It isn't a big deal, but Vassyana's plan will let us do more with the references that WebWarlock found. - Bilby (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, just to be clear, for the content to be defined as "unsourced", shall we assume that this applies to 1) any parts that are currently uncited in the article, or 2) shall we just go with the parts that Gavin has identified in the section below? I'll be happy to do the separating myself, once I'm a bit clearer on what is to be separated. (Although, if I look closely enough, it may well turn out that #1 & 2 are basically the same thing) ;) BOZ (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Assuming that Webwarlock is now truely amoungst us, lets also assume there are lots of primary sources that we could use to support any statement about Kender we so wish to choose to source. If that is so, we no longer have to seperate any of this content between sourced and unsourced; we are now able to discuss as to whether one or all of these points (below) are relevant to writing a good article and therefor merit inclusion. If there is a statement one us think is relevant to the article, then we can amend it, say why we want it included (and receive feedback, if needed), and if someone (like Webwarlock) thinks he can provide attribution for it, he will copy and paste it into the sandbox article, with appropriate references. Note the person who provides the citation gets the last say as to what goes into the sandbox, so they don't have to plaigarise another editor. I will start with item (1) just to make things clear.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm fine with WebWarlock joining the mediation if he wants to, provided that Vassyana is as well. Note that WebWarlock had expressed interest in joining us previously, but given that we had 6 involved parties already, Vassyana disallowed that. Perhaps now that we have two editors who are either unable or uninterested in this part of the mediation, Vassyana will see things differenty? BOZ (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• If he is adding sourced content, you can assume she will have not objections. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Appendix: List of statements that were unsourced & disputed

1. In the Dragonlance Adventures, Kender are described as being 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. distinctive for their pointed ears that give them a faintly elven look. As they grow older, their appearance becomes wizened because of the fine network of lines that appears on their faces about age 40.
   • I propose using this statement, even if it makes a purely cosmetic point, to complement BOZ's picture of Kender from the Monstrous Compendium. Provided everyone else is happy, I would ask Webwarlock if he would paste it into the sandbox article with any amendment he requires to make it his own, provided he is happy to give it attribution. I think it should replace the existing text added by other editors that I have crossed out. What say you? --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
     • I know I've been busy, and I suspect WebWarlock has too. He can join in whenever he gets the chance. Anyway, I located my copy of Dragonlance Adventures (Hickman and Weis, 1987); I suspect I could source at least half of the stuff below with just that book. It's actually a pretty comprehensive book on the whole campaign setting, at 128 pages. The exact quote on kender voices from p51, is: "Kender have a wide vocal range, from deep and husky to high-pitched and squeaky. Older kender tend to have deeper voices, but they still maintain wide pitch ranges and can often perform remarkable sound imitations. When excited, kender tend to speak very quickly and ramble at the same time, making it hard to follow what they're trying to say." The article originally said "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." This is slightly different, but not wholly incompatible with the text.
       • Yeah I have been busy as well. I dug out most of my old Dragonlance stuff (big old memory lane trip there) and discovered to my chagrin that my d20 Dragonlance Campaign setting book was damged with parts unreadable. So I went out and bought another one, maybe the last one my FLGS has. I'll get to sourcing again soon. Web Warlock (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
     • Regarding the wrinkles, Dragonlance Adventures p51 says, "Kender have been called wizened because of the fine network of lines that appears on their faces about age 40. These minute wrinkles give the kender a curious appearance when seen close up, though such lines are considered attractive by kender of all clans."
       • Are wrinkles important? I guess they might be if it gives the reader some visual clues about their appearance. I suggest we include this in 1 above which I have ammended accordingly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
         • I can live with that. :) I pasted it into the article, with a rewrite of the voice-thing. BOZ (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
           • I am not in agreement about the voices bit, which seems generic to me: "Kender have a wide vocal range, from deep and husky to high-pitched and squeaky, and older kender can often perform remarkable sound imitations. Kender tend to speak very quickly and ramble at the same time when excited, making what they're trying to say difficult to understand". These are such vague and broad generalisations as to be applicable to anyone, as you could say this about kender or Ellen Degeneres just as easily. What is it about their voice in the game or stories that is of particular interest? If we could identify a specific incident in the novels in which their voice were important (and why), I think this would provide useful context for the readers, rather than over burdening them with random snippets from the novels.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
2. As a result, Kender have a tendency to unwillingly or unconsciously pick up objects.
   • This statement seems vague, so I would welcome suggestions for improvement. I would prefer to drop it althogher but I am happy to include it if others want to as is.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
     • The statement is fine to me. It describes a very prominent aspect of their psychological makeup, it is often used as a plot device in the novels and even has it's own game mechanic in the RPG. Web Warlock (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
       • I'm inclined to include it as well - the statement refers to their kleptomania, which is both significant in terms of the characters and in terms of the creation of teh Kender. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
         • Fine, I can run with that.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
   • Oddly enough, I'm going to agree with Gavin on this one. This statement seems to be blatantly false, given what I've read on the kender. "Unwillingly" suggests that they have somehow been forced or coerced to do something they did not intend to do. "Unconsciously" suggests that they have no control over their actions. Rather, it seems that kender do what they do deliberately and intentionally, although it is without any desire to cause harm or hardship, or anything negative to anyone at all for that matter. Now, if they've been written differently in different texts, I will digress, but to me this statement should go. I'm going to work on the "Handling" section today and see what I can come up with. BOZ (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Kender see this as the uncanny habit of finding things that have dropped into their pouches by accident, picking things up in the streets, finding "junk", and generally getting things that belong to other people. This art is known as "Handling" for them, and is one of the reasons they are very unpopular among the other races of Krynn.
   • I don't see any mention of handling in either the Annotated Chronicles or Legends. Since we have covered the tendancy of Kender to "borrow" stuff, I think we can drop this, unless someone can think of an interesting instance in one of the novels where dropping items into their pouches was an important plot device.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
     • I've got no idea how, or even if, handling was used in the novels. All I know is how it was used in the game, as displayed above. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
       • There are rules in the various editions of the rule books, but I don't have them with me here at work. I will go with what is in the 3.5 edition rules. I can get to it around 8:00pm CST (that's 12 hours from now). Web Warlock (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Kender don't seem to think there is anything wrong with this, and get genuinely surprised when they see the things that have fallen into their pouches. Kender oppose thieving vehemently, and thus consider being called a thief or cutpurse a great insult to their dignity, ironic given that Kender are inborn with every natural skill that is ideal for a thief.
5. The small race, however, do not tend to "find" things like money, gems, etc. A really interesting shaped leaf will hold more value than a steel coin, because steel coins are everywhere, whereas that interesting shaped leaf hasn't been seen before.
6. Kender Handling is known to get Kender in to deep trouble. Usually, the owner of the item angrily tries to reclaim the item, which can be deadly if the owner in question is a Minotaur or Draconian. 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.
   • I'm going to say that most of statement 6 is unnecessary. Perhaps we could keep the first sentence, but we really don't need the rest. BOZ (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Another aspect of Kender Handling, is their enormous natural curiosity. It's said that the worst thing you can do to a Kender, is isolate it. Trained and otherwise brave warriors have degenerated into a state of sheer panic when hearing a nearby Kender say, "I'm bored".
   • We could also do without statement 7. BOZ (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Kender also have uncanny lockpicking skills, which is a favorite pastime of theirs, and almost every Kender carries a lock picking kit with them. Much like everything else, this is like a game to Kender, and if, for instance, one were arrested, he would likely unlock his shackles or prison door, then go complain to the guard that it was too easy and they should think of upping security. The only reason a lock is ever on the door to a Kender home is to amuse any guests who might stop by.
   • I don't see a reference to the lockpicking in Dragonlance Adventures, unless I merely missed it. WebWarlock has sourced this part to the 2003 Dragonlance Campaign Setting, so I guess that would be fine. BOZ (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
   • The problem I have with items (3-8) is that they don't provide real-world context outside of the novels. Since kender don't have real-world existence, I don't think we should be studying them from an in universe perspective as if this was an anthropologic study as these statements suggest; we should look at the tendancy to "borrow" items as a plot device in the novels, or as game mechanism in the Dragonlance campaigns. For instance, if we could replace these with something along these lines I think we will be providing real-world context in a way that the above statements do not:
     • In the Mists of Krynn campaign setting, Kender are described as being "fascinated by new things, and their natural talents are used not to rob possessions from others, but rather to 'borrow' them for closer examination at a later time" (page 116). "Kender are by far the most difficult characters to play in Krynn, simply because adventuring for gain is not a part of their mindset, a virtual anathema to the traditional thinking of other classes. And so in a number of campaigns, the DM may find kender fit best as NPCs to find secret doors or just to possess objects the party requires at critical times" (page 117).
   • I think this statements give their characteristic tendancy to take objects more context within the game, and I would feel more comfortable if we replaced these sections with these quotes, rather than (3-8) above.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
     • I would definitely want to use that, but I'm not sure we should cut everything that is currently there (much of it, perhaps, but not all). I'll take a look at that now. What is the source you are using for the above paragraph? And I'm not clear on what the "Mists of Krynn campaign setting" refers to. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
       • My object to (3-8) is the in universe perspective. Unless these statements are rewritten to identify their source (such as the Mists of Krynn), this content fails WP:WAF.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Kender have a very sharp wit and tongue, and as such, are masters at the art of insulting people. Kender see great flaws with most of the insults directed at them ("Thief" and "Cutpurse" aside) and take delight in showing people what a real insult is like. Kender seem to have a wide repertoire of insults for any race and any occasion, and have no clue when is the right time to stop insulting someone.
   • We'll deal with this one in its own section. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Kender rarely feel fear, and most only feel it through magical means. For example, one of the most famous kender, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, has felt fear through magical means — at Shoikan Grove, after being subject to dragonfear. This fearlessness results in an almost permanent optimistic attitude and smile. Because literally feeling no fear means not being restricted very much, kender are always willing to try new things, whether that means traveling to a different place, playing a new game, learning to ride a dragon, or even dying an interesting way.
    • We'll deal with this one in its own section as well. BOZ (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Kender are known for their extreme curiosity, a trait which carries the potential to get them into trouble. Possessing an inborn obsession with new or interesting objects or areas, kender often find themselves driven by impulse to "handle" something or explore unfamiliar terrain. Because of this, kender enjoy maps greatly, even making their own (with great enthusiasm) to add to their collections. They also have a tendency to involve themselves in issues or procedures they should stay out of due to this trait, often causing chaos to ensue. It has been said that the most dangerous word a kender can ever utter is "Oops."
12. Kender have typical births — the mother has a 9 month pregnancy and usually has one child at a time. 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 corruptions of other words, like Cassel from Castle, or recent events or items in pouches, like Bearchase, Lockpick, Fruitthrow, etc. Infants mature at about the same rate as humans.
    • Most of this has been removed already; the naming info was trimmed and sourced to "Races of Ansalon." BOZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
13. 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, "kenderkids" 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.
    • Trimmed and sourced to "Races of Ansalon." BOZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Some kender volunteer themselves to keep the kenderkids amused, and are referred to as "Kender Wranglers." These people have fences and locks on their houses—not for security, but so that the children can climb and pick them if they want. Wranglers who watch over adolescent and teen-aged kender are called "Game Masters." As kender reach this age, not only do they seek out these Game Masters, but they also become more active participants in "Kender Moots," social gatherings where the youth can show off their newly found skills in games and demonstrations.
    • Trimmed and sourced to "Races of Ansalon." BOZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Settling down" begins between the ages of 30 and 50 years old. This is a gradual process, whether the kender wonders what's happening back home and decides to go visit, or unconsciously wanders back. They may stay for a bit and then go back adventuring. Eventually the traveling will become shorter and the visits home longer until they return to their city for good and buy or build a home.
    • Removed already. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Most kender find a mate during this stage and live together. They also start to informally choose professions and to pass on their talents to the next generation, possibly becoming parents, Game Masters or Kender Wranglers.
    • Removed already. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
17. 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. Graveyards are uncommon, and in Hylo, a deceased kender's body is set sail on a burning raft rather than buried.
    • Trimmed and sourced to "Races of Ansalon." BOZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
18. All kender weapons can double as instruments. There are two kinds of kender weapons: ones that end in "-pak" or "-ak" are heavier weapons and are usually described as being used by the males, while the ones that end in "-pik" or "-ik" are lighter and depicted as being typically employed by female kenders.
19. Hoopak. A kender weapon, the hoopak resembles a cross between a slingshot and a spear. The hoopak is a long wooden staff with two prongs and elastic at one end and a sharp metal point at the other. The hoopak can be used as a spear, quarterstaff, or sling. It produces a distinctive whirring, buzzing noise when whirled.
20. Chapak. Another kender weapon, the chapak is akin to an axe. The head may be taken off and swung, making it a long-ranged weapon. When the head is removed the chapak may be used as a flute.
21. Whippik. Another kender weapon, primarily described as being used by the females. Like a hoopak, it can be used as a staff, sling, or noisemaker. In Tales of Uncle Trapspringer it is shown that this weapon is capable of firing small arrows. It may be strung for use as an instrument.
22. Battak.The battak is a hollowed out club made of a hard wood that is wider at one end than the other. The larger end provides access to the inside of the club, which may be used to store rocks, pellets, or any form of bullet. The projectile is removed and the club is then used a a bat to swat the bullets at targets. The battak may also be used as a kind of rattle.
23. Sithak. This weapon is depicted as originating from a yoke to carry water buckets. The sithak is fitted with a blade on both ends to be used as a double scythe. There is a curved hook on the ends where a string may be fastened to fire arrows or to act as a string instrument.
24. Hachak. This is described as the largest of all kender weapons, and is primarily used by wood cutters. It is a pole arm six feet in length and can be separated into three two foot sections. One end has a hammer spike and piercing beak. The other end is an axe backed by a hammer head and saw blade. The middle is hollow and wrapped in sheep skin that can hold up to six darts. Metal rings circle the pole at one foot intervals. The rings may be played as chimes by hammering on them.
25. Polpak. This is an eight foot pole normally used for spear fishing or pruning trees. One end of the pool has a short blade attached to it. The blade may be removed and used as a normal short sword. The pole also holds up to a dozen caltrops.
26. Bollik. This weapon is a bola / belt. The metal balls hang from a series of quick release hoops. It can be used as a bola or flail. It can be spun to create a high pitched tone.
27. Afflicted Kender are those who witnessed the destruction of Kendermore perpetrated by the dragon Malystryx, and lost much of their spiritedness, partially due to dragonfear, as happened to Tasslehoff under the influence of Beryllinthranox.
28. Marak Kender are from Krynn's more northerly continent, Taladas, and as a result of a great god-sent Cataclysm their natural curiosity has turned to constant suspicion and paranoia
29. Kendar dwell in a great system of caverns near Krynn's south pole, along with several human tribes and the Theiwar dwarves. They are as friendly as normal Kender, but are more martially-inclined, and sell their services as mercenaries. Kendar are not as curious, however, and believe that anything they haven't seen with their own eyes simply does not exist.
30. Vampire Kender can be found in Ravenloft, the results of Lord Soth's twisted experimentation. Since Ravenloft and Dragonlance are now each produced by companies other than TSR/Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro, the kender of Ravenloft have been retconned into a race of halflings
31. Forlorn Kender are a new kind of undead creature introduced in Key of Destiny and detailed in Key of Destiny Errata
32. Nightstalkers are a class of kender introduced in the Dark Disciple Trilogy. Nightstalkers have the ability to speak with the dead, something that happened during the War of Souls when the dead were held in thrall. Some kender began to find they could talk to the dead. One such kender is Nightshade Pricklypear, who aids Rhys, the monk of Majere turned monk of Zeboim, in his travels in Amber and Ashes, Amber and Iron, and Amber and Blood.

Touching base

How are things going? What areas are making good progress? Are there any current sticking points and, if so, what are they? Vassyana (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Heya, been busy and then out of town for a few days, but I will be more active tomorrow.  :) The one big challenge that seems to be getting worse is the attrition of people involved in this mediation! Ursasapien disappeared over a month ago, SamBC hasn't been seen for a couple weeks, Webwarlock came on for a moment but has been only partly active, and even Gavin hasn't made any edits in almost a week! I'd like to keep this mediation going, but I don't want to be talking to myself.  ;)

Anyway, things do seem to be progressing, and I think we're all coming to understand each other at least a little better. I'm not sure if there are currently any major sticking points - we seem to be moving along more or less smoothly. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had to finish off end-of-semester marking, but as of 15 minutes ago it was done. :) I think we've knocked off the last section at last, so time to move onto the next. :) - 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In universe perspective

Although the content is improving with sourcing, I think that the style of some of the new sections is still too in universe for Wikipedia. The drift starts in the section Appearance and traits, were the tone lapses into a pseudo-anthropological tone:

As they grow older, their appearance becomes wizened because of the fine network of lines that appears on their faces about age 40. A generic kender hairstyle is the topknot; a kender's topknot is usually a source of pride for them. Kender have a wide vocal range, from deep and husky to high-pitched and squeaky, and older kender can often perform remarkable sound imitations. Kender tend to speak very quickly and ramble at the same time when excited, making what they're trying to say difficult to understand.

One the article reverts to the in universe perspective, it looses its focus and just becomes a random collection of stuff. I feel that we have to dump this content, rewrite it so it looses its in universe tone, or change approach, such as to show how kender were developed in the games and novels in chronological order. In short, I feel the article is now reverting to be an amalgam of cruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't some "in universe" description needed to place fictional creatures and other various nouns in context, as it is for mythology articles? What is the line for that kind of material? How should that necessary description be best approached? Vassyana (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

1. If I was writing an essay based on a synthesis of primary sources, I would agree with you that descriptions of Kender drawn from the games or novels would provide context. However, in the absence of real-world analyis, criticism or discussion of the characters' developement from reliable secondary sources, I don't think we have to list every trait or characteristic otherwise we will fall foul of WP:WAF. Does it matter if Kender tend to speak very quickly? I personally cannot answer that question, and what is missing is a secondary source to explain why kender voices are notable; we should not be listing every single trait just because we have primary content available to do so.
2. With regard to the reliance on an in universe perspective, it actually ignores the real-world context. We must write this article from a real-world perpective, otherwise we are confusing real-world fact from in universe fantasy. For example, kender are described as "small boned, rarely more than 4 feet tall", but this provides no real-world context. In the real-world, dwarfism is associated with physical deformity[7], yet none of the primary sources discuss this. By quoting the primary sources without reference to secondary sources is basically an unquestioning regurgitation of the source material.
3. In order to avoid an in universe perspective, we must state where these traits came from, e.g. In Dragonlance Adventures, Kender appearance becomes wizened because of the fine network of lines that appears on faces of such & such characters (such as Tasslehoff Burrfoot's great grandparents). Just stating these traits as if they were facts independent of the stories in which they occur robs the reader of real world context.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing and style

I decided to run through the entire article and confirm all of the present references. Given that I was checking them out anyway, I thought it might be nice to convert to footnotes + refs, using harvard, rather than the existing format. This may not be to everyone's taste, so I did it all in one edit, in order to make it easier if someone would like to revert. The advantage is the it groups all of the references together at the end, so it is easier to confirm that the sources are (or are not) reliable, and that it allows the footnotes to provide some extra context, such as the quot from which the claim is drawn.

As part of this process, I found some problems that I would like to raise:

• From a style perspective, should "Kender" have a capital? It varies throughout the article. I'm leaning towards yes, but I'm not exactly noted grammar.
• The ref: Chambers, Jamie (December 28, 2008). "UnCon Chat Transcript: Dragonlance Campaign Setting Q&A". Wizards of the Coast. Retrieved 2008-06-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) is a broken link. Should we remove the active link, or let it sit to see if it starts working later? (I'm getting a db error).
• I've had to guess at the title for: Staplehurst, Graham (December, 1994). "Dragons of Despair". White Dwarf (60). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), which certainly won't do if this goes live. :)

Anyway, I'll give it time before making any more changes, just in case you wish to revert. - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have used kender where the source uses lower case, but in the introduction, I assume we are refering to Kender as a type of fictional character, and use upper case.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Vassyana's suggestion

I am having problems following the changes so far, and I propose following Vassyana's earlier suggestion that unsourced content get moved to another page so we can go through it line by line.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. My recent changes were mostly just to get the referencing in a better form. I finally have access to teh primary sources I needed, so hopefully we can reference some things and confirm whether or not they count as synthesis - I agree that we should be very wary of it. I'm happy to work line by line through anything you want to go over. - Bilby (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure - there is far less left now, so maybe it will be easier to do it that way. BOZ (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good morning.  :) Thank you Gavin for identifying the remaining areas of concern. I'll try to free up some time to look at those today or tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We could split them off into another page, but since Gavin has identified the remaining unsourced content, it is now more clear which parts still need sourcing. The depictions in the novels seem just to need proper cite tags. The other parts we can address here; I was last working on the Fearlessness above, and was going to move on to Curiosity, and then we would hit the Weapons next logically. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Touching base again

How are things going? Is any assistance required in moving things forward? What remains to be done? Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to be going more or less OK, although they have slowed up to a significant crawl as all parties involved appear to be either busy with other things, or missing in action. The above section gives a pretty good indicator of what is left, unless I am missing something. I had last done work on this section some time ago, waited for a response, and am still waiting for one. :) BOZ (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm most MIA for a bit - mid-semester marking is still underway, and I've got a couple of articles for 0.7 to work on. But I picked up all the primary sources that are needed for this at last, so that much is under control. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have marked the unsourced content, and would like to either replace or delete it so we can then go on to a final review. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all for the replacing. I'll have a good look at the Fearlessness section today - I'll print it out so that I can review when I have some free moments. BOZ (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad that things are productive, if a bit slow. Just in case you did not notice, I also wanted to touch base about a few other articles here. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did see that. I'm not sure where to go from there, so it will require some thought. BOZ (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time. This mediation has been ongoing for quite some time and involves some complicated issues to work through, so a few extra days isn't going to unduly hold things up. Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)