Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inheritance Cycle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPIT)
Shortcut
WikiProject iconInheritance Cycle NA‑class (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Inheritance Cycle, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Inheritance CycleWikipedia:WikiProject Inheritance CycleTemplate:WikiProject Inheritance CycleInheritance Cycle articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Collaboration Dashboard
This box: view • talk • edit
Featured Article Candidates none at the moment
Featured List Candidates none at the moment
Featured Picture Candidates none at the moment
Featured Article Removal Candidates none at the moment
Featured List Removal Candidates none at the moment
Peer Review none at the moment
Good article nominees none at the moment
Version 1.0 Editorial Team Assessment
Article requests Requests
Inheritance-related Articles For Deletion none at the moment
Inheritance-related Factual Accuracy Disputes none at the moment
Inheritance-related Neutrality Disputes none at the moment
Inheritance categories Category:Inheritance Cycle • Category:Inheritance Cycle characters

Merging?[edit]

Having come across an article like Saphira the dragon on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, I wonder if it would be more beneficial to merge the vast majority of these articles into a single characters page, per WP:FICT (disclaimer: I have never read, nor heard of, the series in question). Nifboy 03:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Saphira article definetely can be expanded. Someone must've just tried to summarize the "adventures". So, if we cannot expand any articles in certain ways, then yes, merge them into one. Icelandic Hurricane #12 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be mergerd 58.172.36.2 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that it is right.

Inheritance Trilogy Wiki[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the "correct" place to address this, but I just thought I'd mention the Inheritance Trilogy Wiki to you guys. It desperately needs some new members (there are only about three of us active right now), so I'm trying to spread the word. If anybody cares to drop by, please do. Amina skywalker 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh wow... Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Aznph8playa2 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this website can be a great resource for improving the articles under the scope of the project. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but should that really be our scope? Should the scope not contain, simply the improvement and inclusion of all information relevant to the Inheritance Trilogy rather than a competition with another site?Aznph8playa2 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't think of a better one. Maybe you could think up one and place it here, to see if yours would be better. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 12:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogged Down[edit]

I really feel that the focus of the page is drawn away from by the massive extent of references to other projects. I apologize to those who have worked to make the page what it is, but I'm cleaning up the page so that our tasks and goals are evident.Aznph8playa2 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Burning Plains[edit]

I've created this article. Any comments/suggestions.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real nice article. When the assesment page gets organized, this can get a real high class, possible GA or A class. Good job! Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class categories[edit]

How do you make categories for each class on the assessment scale? I've made on for stubs. But I don't know how to make the rest. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization rules[edit]

Thought I'd address this, since I seem to differ from most everybody else. :) In my opinion, the names of races should be capitalized: ie, Elves, Humans (or Men), Dwarves, etc. Many of the exisiting articles, however, have elves, humans, and dwarves uncapitalized. Does anybody know the "rules" for this? « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish. I would capitalize them, but I don't know if that choice would be proper. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 16:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following on the reference section of Dictionary.com: "The basic rules are to capitalize the names of definite sections of a country or the world, and the names of nationalities". And, on the the UMW website, I found this: "capitalize names of all races, nationalities and ethnic groups". From that, I feel fairly comfortable capitalizing. :) « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the book itself has the races lowercased. Shouldn't we follow the book itself? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that, because this is an encyclopedia, the thing to do would be to follow the generally accepted English grammar rules. But I'm willing to go either way. I just want to make sure I'm in line with everybody else. :) « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave them lowercased. íslenska hurikein #12(talk) 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support uppercased letters, and I've already done it on the pages I've recently created.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of the critical reactions pages[edit]

I think the critical reaction pages are a tiny bit harsh. Should they be edited?(Vance Clarend 11:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

One, who are you, and two, what are you talking about? íslenska hurikein #12(talk) 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean like the critical reactions pages for Eragon and other articles seem to be a little bit like "Eragon IS a flat ripoff of everyone else" rather than a less biased "Eragon may have many similarities to other works of fiction." (Vance Clarend 11:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think they're overly harsh. Statements like "There has been much debate..." or "It has been pointed out..." aren't biased one way or the other, in my opinion. Though the section about the names bearing resemblance to names in Tolkien's work could do with some rewordings, I suppose. « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elva article?[edit]

This WP is coming along well, but I have noticed that the Elva article was very poorly written originally; I have tried to clean it up but it needs much expanding. Can any members of WPIT help me with expanding this article please? Aaron teh tennisman 00:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor expansion to the Role in Eldest section, but I can't seem to remember the group of people that attempted to assassinate Nasuada. Anybody know? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can look that up when I get back from vacation....next week maybe Teh tennisman 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks it's The Black Hand. I'll confirm ASAP. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A VERY important announcment[edit]

I've streamlined the assessment process. Check out

Related categories are:

Category:Inheritance Trilogy articles by quality

Category:Inheritance Trilogy articles by importance

don't be daunted, you don't need to add the category. Just add the template with the corresponding quality and importance assessment on the article's talk page as per the examples, and it'll automatically be added to the category The method of using the template now is: {{Wpinheritance| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet!!!!! This is so cool. It's just like WP:WPTC! íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have so many articles[edit]

There should not be so many articles about the inheritence series. There should be a short article about each book and maybe one or two about some main charicters, it is just unnessesry to have an artice for every battlle/skirmish that occurs in the books, esspesualy ones like The Battle Of Carvahall, it wasn't a battle and could be explained in one or two sectences, having so many (basicly) useless articles just slows up the internet and wasts Wikipedai space. Artickles like the Battle of carival belong in the article about the book, not in their own article. If any fans are planing to scream at me because I am insulting their "god", don't even bother, I won't listen. Shadoom1 08:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lack of space on Wikipedia; it's unlimited, so there's no problem of space wastage. Articles like Battle of the Burning Plains are interesting, and notable events in the book, so they are written about. Thanks! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle" of Carvahall (however its spelt)[edit]

The article should be renammed to something like "the rebelion of Carvahall" as it was a rebbelion (a group of people chose to violently resist the power of a ruling lord) or "The battles of Carvahall" (as it was a seres of battles, not a single one), just not "the battle of Carvahall", It could be a skirmish, but it wasn't realy like that, "Skirmish" would be better than "battle" though.. Shadoom1 07:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of skirmishes/assaults, not just rebellion, since Galbatorix's armies attacked first. This series of assaults put together has been named Battle. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galbatorix's forces didn't attack first, the villages did, the death of Quimby and burning the village were "acidents" not attacks. A battle must have constant conflict tlo be considered a batte, there was not constant fighting during the Carvahall "battle", it would be best classed as an uprising or rebelion. Shadoom1 07:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(quote)the death of Quimby and burning the village were "acidents"(end quote) oh? eating someone is an accident? and and it (the igniter thingy) just happened to land on two wagons? LordLinkScrolls 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alagaësia article[edit]

Hi, just dropping by to tell you that I edited the "Similarities to Middle-earth" section in Alagaësia. I made it "Similarities to other fantasy works", since it's not only similar to one setting. Also, I put some invisible notes there; might help if anyone put how Paolini's languages are similar to Tolkien's, and how Paolini's setting is different from everybody else's. (Middle-earth is not "black and white", BTW.) Though I'm a fan of Tolkien and haven't read these books (yet), I don't think that Paolini was overtly copying him (except perhaps for the names) since most of the similarities (Elves, Dwarves, Sorcerer servants, etc.) are fantasy tropes or clichés now. Look at Warcraft, Forgotten Realms, etc. (Of course, Tolkien pretty much pioneered some of the clichés when they still weren't.) Uthanc 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Keep it up. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ineritance places[edit]

I just made a new articlecalled Ineritance places and have put information on all the Places articles in it, but it still needs alot of formating to make it readable, I have also put merger suggestion things at the top of all the place artices, most of them are patheticly small and would be better off in one big article than hundreds of small ones, as it was a large edit I also decided to join this project Shadoom1 09:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should actually leave the tiny articles, since book 3 will come out in likely a year. But after that, if we have little info, I guess we can merge them. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 11:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment woulden't it be better to have one big article, then if theres more info in book 3 (unlikley) then we can have links to the main articles from the big one, for the moment it would be better to have one big article than hundreds of small ones waiting for the next book, untill there is more information to expand the articles they are simply too small to have their own articles Shadoom1 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing on appearances[edit]

Can the page for the project be changed so it's not so bright? I see the relation to the book covers, but looking at the green, red, and blue is quite painful. Plus when I look away I can only see pink. --Spyderchan 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Just change the web colors. The codes are on this page. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Spyderchan 22:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleaning up Eragon (character)[edit]

Would it help any to simply have a section on his article for family and add "see also" links to the synopsis on the Inheritance trilogy page?--Spyderchan 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'll wait for others' opinions before we decide. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I have been doing some serious attempts at editing Eragon, but there is such a horrible flow of thought, it is stinted in that it goes book by book. This article could use a top-to-bottom rewrite, one which I have been working at since I started working on this WP> --teh tennisman Speak your piece!People person!FREE OWNAGE CLICK HERE 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as for that page, does anyone mind if I go through and do a top to bottom rewrite on it, adding in the sections that are listed on the project page? --teh tennisman Speak your piece!People person!FREE STUFF CLICK HERE 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never mind-i have too little time for this.--teh tennisman 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites[edit]

Should links to fansites be allowed under external links? If so, I think the "criticism and analysis" links might have to go too. They don't seem to be adding much to the article except for interviews and things. I think it would be better to remove them from the "External links" section and keep external links within the article for citations etc. --Spyderchan 02:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one's had anything to say, I'll just go ahead and removed non-official links.--Spyderchan 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an anti-shurtugal user, I think we need more criticism. Although we shouldn't have it be a massacre of Eragon and Paolini (we can leave that to encyclopaedia dramatica), the criticism sections have been dumbed down far too much. Ironically, the last time I was on this page, I supported getting rid of the criticism. (80.247.146.169 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There was a discussion about that on the Eragon talk page a while ago. It might seem "dumbed down" because it was changed to equally represent the pros and cons of the book.--Spyderchan 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to Merge character pages[edit]

I want to give a heads up to the project and ask for a hand. I'm planning on merging all the character articles (aside from a handful of primary characters) in a single Characters in The Inheritance Trilogy article and all of the Dragons into a Dragons in The Inheritance Trilogy article. Too many of these minor characters have their own articles which in addition to being a violation of WP:FIC also makes a mess and frustrates navigation between articles. Alot of these character pages I'm also seeing a storyline breakdown of their entire appearance in the series which is not really appropriate for minor character pages either. If any one wants to give me a hand that would be great. I'll have a model of the proposed pages up soon in a sandbox so everyone can put in their input before I create them. I figure you guys are the big Paolini fans so you're going to care the most what happens to these articles. NeoFreak 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Dragon Wing (ship) and Stronghammer and The Eye of the Boar as an exxample of two articles that i have created all by myself. 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't really looking for advicee on how to create an article but some input on the merging of existing Inheritance material. I redirected the hammer article to the main character article and I'm going to propose that the other two are deleted. I would suggest you review the guildline on notability and fiction before creating any more articles. It seems like youare a fan and have a lot of motivation so I would recommend putting that to use in some of the existing articles before creating new ones. NeoFreak 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
before you delet emy hard work at least lok at it and see if its wroth keeping. Smith Jones 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also id did readd the rules and it never says that i cant create an article for Dragon Wing (ship) and The Eye of hte Boar so i think that you are the one who should reading the rules. Smith Jones 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rough draft of the new page is complete. Due to navigational concerns as well as the need to condense the sections and avoid repetition I have removed some material. I would appreciate some input from the fans of the series to ensure I have not removed anything vital to understanding the individual characters. Please keep in mind that a detailed breakdown of each characer's involvment in the storyline is not needed, just an overview of their role and chracter traits. Thanks in advance. NeoFreak 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good... I'm not a fan of the series and don't know everything about the characters, but that looks like a solid article-to-be. UnaLaguna 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any argument sustainable by policy or any unforseen issues I plan on making the move by the end of the day. Going once, going twice... NeoFreak 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sold. I've created the page and will finish the redirects tonight. NeoFreak 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i just merged farthen dur with tronjheim and ellesmera with weldenvarden because it was just a stub. sincemy article at hte Dragon Wing (ship) was deleted for some reason im goign to merge all of the stubs into bette rarticle somewhar else. Smith Jones 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to merge pages just because they're stubs. If you're going to do something like that, make sure they're on the same subject, and mention it to everyone else before doing it! UnaLaguna 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually, i do! my article dragon wing (article) was merge d because it was a stub to teirm by a discussion on the debate, so this means that any stub articles that no one is going to improve should go to athe article that they belong to until someon can find engouh info to prove that they dserve their own page. read the rules. Smith Jones 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the rules, but the way in which you described it created the impression that you were merging stub x with stub y even if they had very little in common. However, there seems to be some structure to this, which is reassuring. I will continue to assume good faith in you! UnaLaguna 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THANK you for keeping godo faith in my ill try to be clearer next time. Smith Jones 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to form large articles[edit]

Hey all, I know that it can be nice to put lots of these little articles into one large one, but I think it might be a bit overdone in this case. Somewhere between having an article for every character, even if they appeared for only a chapter or less, and having one article that contains the bios of everyone is a middle ground. I think we should decide who are the main characters, and who are the minor characters, and then work from there.

Similarly, is the locations article. In fact, I'm seeing just 3 articles that contain almost all there is to know about places, people, culture, races, language, etc. I just want to make sure that's what we all want.

What my proposal would be to do the following:

  1. If a place is mentioned for more than 5-6 chapters, it should get it's own article, especially if something major happened there. Examples would be Carvahall, Beor Mountains, Du Weldenvarden. Possible articles are Surda and Teirm. When applicable, they should be grouped (Beor Mountains, Du Weldenvarden), unless the place was a key point (Carvahall)
  2. All other places which don't fit into the above should be placed in an article with a name something like "Minor Places in the Inheritance Trilogy". This also includes all places which have been mentioned, but not visited in the series.
  3. The same thing should be done with characters. Major should include anyone who has more than one chapter written in their point of view, or included in more than 10 chapters (roughly), and especially if they have references throughout both books published. Examples are Eragon, Roran, Brom, Anya, Murtagh, Nasuada, Oromis, etc.
  4. Any character which is referred to, but not actually included should not be included in this section, but can be included in a suitable minor characters section. It might be a good idea to have them separated into races to a degree.
  5. There should be a page that covers the different races mentioned in the trilogy, and possibly the intelligent creatures. The Inhabitants section of the current Inheritance Trilogy Locations should do nicely for that.
  6. Similarly, a Language article could be added, copying that part of the article.
  7. For the battles, a single article should be enough to cover all of the information for every battle referred to in the series. Perhaps they could later be grouped into wars, if we gain more information.

I know there's alot of changes here, and I'm sure not every one of them will be made, in fact, I'd almost hope that it won't all come down to this plan. But what I'm trying to do here is to start a master plan that deals with these subjects in better light, and covers everything that is needed to keep it going. As a whole, there should probably be somewhere between 20-50 articles for the series as it stands now, but that's just a guess. Anyways, I hope this is at least useful as a starting point for such a plan. Tuvas 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC) For an example of what could be done, I've been working on combining the articles about the Beor Mountains into one, that contains the locations of the dwarf cities, mentions of the Beor Mountains, etc. It's still very much a work in progress (There's alot of mess to sort through), but it's at least decent enough now to get an idea if that's what we want do do with all of the articles. Tuvas 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've come up with a few more details to how this should work, after my experiment with the Beor Mountains Page, especially with the locations part.

  1. There should be 1 main article with all of the lands contained, whose purpose is to describe the general feel of the land.
  2. There should be 4-5 sub articles, I'm thinking the Beor Mountains, Empire, Du Weldenvarden, and areas outside the empire (Surda and Hadarac Desert for sure, perhaps). These articles are the sections given in the lands article. The lands article should also refer to these as the main article on the subject.
  3. If a place is suitably notable from the sub articles, it should have it's own entry, otherwise it should be left alone, perhaps a redirect link to the sub article page.

Similarly, I think that the issue of major characters and races should be dealt with as follows:

  1. There should be one main page which discusses all of the races in general.
  2. There should be a page that discusses the characters of each race. These pages should be linked to from the main race page.
  3. If a character is suitably notable, they should have their own page, and include only a summary in the characters article.

The other articles I think should stay more or less as they are. I hope this is useful. Tuvas 19:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made some serious progress towards getting things more in order. There's still a large mess of redirected links to worry about, but I'm just taking things one step at a time. I don't know the series well enough to remember if a name is a person or place, or where it is, but I did the best I can, at least for the places. There's still a few more things I'm likely to do in the short-term future, but as a whole, things are looking alot more organized, and will be even more once the last few things are done. Anyways, here's what still needs to be done.

  1. Check the "What Links Here" page for the Inheritance Trilogy Lands and Inheritance Trilogy Inhabitants pages, and make sure that everything redirects to the right spot! Try to eliminate redirecting trees, there are alot of those. Also, there was alot of things which linked to Inheritance Trilogy locations which didn't have much to do with inhabitants, so...
  2. Do some serious work with the characters, but I think that'll be less sticky.
  3. Correct any mistakes.
  4. Add the relevant information to the articles, new cities, etc.
  5. Fix up the Inheritance Trilogy Inhabitants page.

Anyways, I think there's some good potential in these articles, there just needs to be a bit more work done. I just hope I have been of service! Tuvas 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been doing a bit more, and I've come to a conclusion that one more group of pages is needed, something to do with groups of people. This could include the Varden, Forsworn, and probably alot of other interesting groups found within the series. I really don't think I'll get to it today, but it would be interesting, if anyone's up for the challenge. Tuvas 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! You're really going at it! I support all of your ideas and encourage you to keep at it. You're doing great so far! :-) --pIrish Arr! 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, I'm giving up for the night, I may or may not return to this project at some point in time soon. There's still alot to be done, especially with redirecting links, but I think it can be done, given enough time. There is still a large mess with tons of redirects, but best of luck to everyone working them out. As long as we have a plan, and stick to it, it shouldn't be too bad. Tuvas 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've got most of the redirects taken care of, there still is a thing or two that need to be taken care of, but that's it. The biggest problem right now is Alagaësia. There are several things which could be done to take care of this problem, but I'm not going to do it, at least not right away. I want to hear some feedback on this. Please leave anything in the section below. I should also add there is a problem still with Category names, that don't seem to match up with article names, but I'm still thinking through exactly what to do with this. Tuvas 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alagaësia[edit]

Okay, the problem is, there's still alot of articles that link to Alagaësia, but there isn't any reference on Wikipedia as to what Alagaësia is. Right now the link redirects to the Inheritance Trilogy Lands page, but there are a few things that might be done to fix the problem better. Here's a few ideas. Please comment on them. As of right now, I'm very opened to ideas as well. Tuvas 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-created the Alagaësia page, put a small section for lands outside of Alagaësia (Namely Alalëa), and have at it. If this is done, it might be a good idea to merge the Inhabitants page and Language pages back into the article.
  • Add section on the Inheritance Trilogy Lands that explains what Alagaësia is. A possibility is to include the lands currently included in the Lands, minus Alaglëa, into this section.
There should be a primary article titled Alagaësia that then links to the other lands contained within. Basically, instead of "Locations in Inheritance Trilogy" (or whatever it is right now), just make it Alagaësia. --pIrish Arr! 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what about the lands without, but are still a part of the Trilogy? Even if they have played almost no role... Tuvas 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe make a subsection there titled "Lands outside of Alagaësia"? --pIrish Arr! 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so far that's more or less what I had in mind, but one last question, do you think we should merge back in the Languages and Inhabitants articles as well? Tuvas 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking something like what Middle-earth does with the languages and peoples? If so, then yes. --pIrish Arr! 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's pretty much what I was thinking, but I'd like to wait a bit more to give people a chance to respond (Not to mention that a move request will have to be initiated...) Hmmm... Well, I'll go ahead and put up the merge notices, and move notices, and all that other fun stuff that goes along with it. Wow, this is turning into alot more of a project than I thought it would be... Tuvas 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) OK. I don't think you'll get too much objection to it though.
These articles are a complete trainwreck. I'm really not at all surprised. --pIrish Arr! 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct at the train wreck... I have to go through the proper procedure on this move, because the page Alagaësia already exists... Tuvas 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've got it taken care of, all we have to do now is to point people to the debate at Talk:Inheritance Trilogy Lands, and continue it there. Within short order (hopefully) an admin will go ahead and make the change. Meanwhile, I've gotten things started for after the merge/movement is taken care of, it should help facilitate the process a bit.Tuvas 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full names vs. Name (Inheritance)[edit]

Okay, I've got into a bit of a discussion about this, but the question becomes, should we use the full names to people in the articles, or only use partial names. For instance, Saphira is currently under a move debate with respect to this question. Others who should be considered are Roran, Eragon Shadeslayer (I'd say probably no on that one...), Arya, and Durza. I think in general it would be prefered, but there might be exceptions to this rule, I thought I'd at least bring it up here. Tuvas 15:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already know my stance on Saphira as stated here. I do not think the full name should be used in this case. For the same reason I think Saphira should remain "Saphira," I think Eragon should remain "Eragon." I just don't think they are as well known by their full names as they are just by their first.
As for the others, Roran and Arya should be fine with their full names as they are stated in the first book and are generally pretty well known by them (I actually know their last names right off the top of my head without even thinking about it or looking it up). I have no idea what to do with Durza. I would suggest leaving it as is for now. --pIrish Arr! 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, scratch that on Roran. I'm really not sure what his real full name is. If you're suggesting "Stronghammer" to be part of his full name, then I would categorize him the same way as I would Saphira and Eragon. --pIrish Arr! 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roran Garrowsson is the name. I know your stance on Saphira, but I was kind of hoping other's would also post, just to make sure it's a general consensus... My thought is that as a rule of thumb, the full name should be used, but I think Eragon Shadeslayer is a bit much, everything else should be alright though... As to the comment of Saphira Bjartskular being a spoiler, well, hmmm, the ancient language meaning Brightscales...
Also, there are a few others, Jeod being one of them, and I would guess there are others. Anyways, my thought is, if there is a full name somewhere that is in the books or given in a very reliable source, then it should be the name of the character, with a redirect or appropriate link from a disambiguation page, with the sole exception of that being Eragon, even though he is widely known as Eragon Shadeslayer, that is a major plot spoiler for anyone who should happen to look him up. Tuvas 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Inheritance Trilogy[edit]

Okay, this page had some major issues... I think I've fixed most of the major ones, and organized the information considerably, but there's still a fair amount of work that needs to be done to the page. I've restored some of the major characters which previously had their own pages, and included a short summary (Too short) on the Characters page. I've also added a request for a standard policy for this page. I just hope this will all be for something, it's sure been alot of work... Tuvas 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spoiler Tags[edit]

Okay, I've noticed that there is a large amount of spoiler tags, including quite a few that don't seem to need them. WP:SPOIL states that the tags aren't needed if the section title includes something like "Plot". Also, I don't think it's a spoiler to include information about the past, even if it was revealed in Eldest. A spoiler would be, for instance, the existence of Glaedr. But some things, in my mind, are silly. If you put spoiler tags everywhere, a person will just ignore them, obviously if they are looking up something on Wikipedia before they have read the books, they want to know something more about the material. Anyways, would like to hear your thoughts on this, before I continue my [[WP:SPOIL|spoiler] massacre. Tuvas 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. One of the articles I watch recently had a spoiler massacre. Sooo much better. Just be bold and do it. If it's really all that controversial, it can be reverted and discussed. --pIrish Arr! 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PIrish, as you should well know, I've been bold alot with my editing, I just sometimes like to have a second opinion at least before I make some changes. Anyways, I'll take a look at things, and likely will remove most of the spoiler tags that are in existence, it'll be plenty hard to get all of them, and harder to place them where they should be, but I'll give it a shot. Hopefully I'll have the time (Next Tuesday is pretty much my limit on working on these articles, at least for some time to come...) Tuvas 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity[edit]

An inactivity tag was placed on the WikiProject main page, and rightly so. It's seen its best days, and it feels like I'm the only active contributor (by "contributor" I purely mean "reverter of bad edits"). All the other main contributors (such as PIrish and Tuvas) are no longer active here. UnaLaguna 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Eragon Articles[edit]

I only found this page after I had suggested this on the Talk:Eragon page. However, it does not seem to have mattered, since this is inactive. I am going to post a notification here anyway, on the off chance that someone still has this page watchlisted, but for some reason does not have Eragon.

I am proposing a large scale cleanup of the Eragon related articles. My proposal can be found here. Mainly I want to merge and redirect many of the articles that shouldn't be their own articles to a main article. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. i said 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the linked place has stalled. I have outlined what I'm going to do in the next day or two there. Any help would be appreciated. i said 02:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem stalled. And the Eragon articles do need cleanup. As soon as I gain mebership (possibly sooner), I'll see what I can do about it. Cheers, --Gp75motorsports 13:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got some free time?[edit]

I am currently trying to improve Eldest to GA, but I don't have that much free time. Could some one try helping me if they can? Thanks! Shrewpelt 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldoze[edit]

The entire project needs a bulldozer. Just a complete restructure. The characters are terribly written (no offense). I actually liked it better when it was simply all the characters has ano article but, of course, fantasy must have a distinction. Someone Please fix this, as it is in serious trouble. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you mean when the characters didn't have their own article? — i said 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once upon a time I attempted that. I see that alot of the work I did has been reverted, but at least this time they did it somewhat smart... Oh well, I don't have time to do everything by myself, so... Tuvas 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the characters[edit]

I think that all major characters in the Inheritance trilogy should have their own articles, not just tiny sections with small tidbits on the characters. =) Now that's a good idea.--Gp75motorsports 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how do you qualify a person as a major character. Tuvas 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor/empire vs. king/kingdom[edit]

Has it been explained anywhere why Galbatorix is not an emperor (or styles himself as such) vs. a king when his dominion is called The Empire? Why then not call it The Kingdom? It seems contradictory given the connotations of both words. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe...cause it...SOUNDS GOOD?
IDK. Ask CP, he could give you an answer. In the mean time, is this really the biggest concern?
Spinach Dip 07:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this project is dead?[edit]

No posts since November?

Looks to me like this project is dead.

Spinach Dip 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article importance[edit]

I'm not sure if anyone's still here, but the Importance ratings of the articles within this project are all over the place. I propose restructuring the importance as follows:

If nobody has any complaints, I'll go through and start implicating these changes in the next couple of days. Una LagunaTalk 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole project is pretty much dead, so I don't see anyone having any problem with any of that stuff.
Spinach Dip 03:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I've changed my mind about Christopher Paolini - that should probably remain top. I'll go ahead and make the relevant changes and put Isidar Mithrim and Daret up for AFD later. Una LagunaTalk 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daret is already up for deletion. I did it yesterday. Spinach Dip 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Inheritance Trilogy[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone Announcements[edit]

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help..

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people[edit]

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance Trilogy articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Inheritance Trilogy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Children's literature at peer review[edit]

Portal:Children's literature is at portal peer review. Review comments are welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Children's literature/archive1. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Children's literature for Featured Portal candidacy[edit]

  1. Portal:Children's literature
  2. Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature

I've nominated Portal:Children's literature to be considered for Featured Portal quality.

This was a joint quality improvement collaboration between myself and User:Wadewitz.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live![edit]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody still around?[edit]

List of Inheritance Cycle characters got nominated for WP:SPEEDY. I'm gonna work on it but could always use another set of eyes. Actually, all Inheritance content could use some checking (I'm watching the pages and they get vandalized pretty regularly). Anybody in this project still online? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Inheritance Cycle listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Inheritance Cycle to be moved to World of Eragon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inheritance_Cycle&oldid=1209825369"