Talk:Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: *Oppose -- articles are about two different things.  User:Mrwuggs appears to be trying to get more exposure for Tiamat (planet) by eliminating acknowledgement of other Tiamat disambiguations. -- JHunterJ 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal

message: The image in the article is not Tiamat.  It is a similar painting but was created for a Dragonlance character.
:*While created for DL, the five-headed multi-colored dragon in the background is at least an accurate depiction of the physical form of Tiamat.   zogetaur (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect image source 

message: Will someone please give a verification for them being the same entity? To my knowledge, they aren't. DDSaeger (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'll agree with all of that, completely. BOZ (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *While a footnote is obviously appropriate, completely identifying them in the introduction is not. I'll change that when I find some time, unless someone is ahead of me. DDSaeger (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiamat =/= Takhisis 

message: The article has plenty of references to notability.  Anyone care to explain the tags?  And this isn't very in-universe at all...  Hobit (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability;95% of the article is plot summary with an in universe perspective. If you wish to contest this, put the article forward for peer review at RFC. Do not arbitrarily remove the templates are you are doing on other articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to bring this, to an RFC if you wish also.   Hobit (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Hi  could you describe the specific issues you see with the article? It's hard to know how to fix it without more details.   It has a heck of a lot of cites (much more than most articles) and while it has issues, I don't think anyone could tell the exact things that are bothering you. Hobit (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the issues stem from fan-oriented sources or content in the article. For example, you mention , but it is hard to argue a top 10 list of cool, unknown facts really would show a fact as due for inclusion. Entire sections (especially in the fictional description section) are largerly unsourced and contain phrases like  These factoids are of course interesting and relevant to fans of D&D such as myself, but to a casual reader or an encyclopedic summary of Tiamat these are in my eyes wrong to include and better suited for fan-oriented wikis (such as the Forgetten Realm or D&D wikia). I like how WP:FAN describes this issue:  With that in mind, I don't believe that there are enough non-fan-based RS to support the fictional description section being more than one or two sentences. Thanks for the ping and I look forward to discussing this with you, . Also, I hope you have a happy New Year's Eve ^u^ — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Non nobis solum.  11:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think the better guidance is MOS:PLOT which states . MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't have a hard and fast rule for characters; in general, plot summaries for most topics should be between 400 and 700 words but many character articles have longer (ex: Peter Parker) fictional character biography sections. While the description section is tagged as fictional (per WP:LABELFICTION), it could use some cleanup to make sure everything is in the out-of-universe style and trimmed down to the key plot beats for the character which would be more than two sentences and could use primary sources. The section could be reorganized to have subheadings for each edition to show how the character has changed over time (similar to comic book characters where their fictional biographies are divided by publishing ages). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the opinion that  Tiamat can be compared to Peter Parker. The scale of the cultural impact is nowhere as near. I am glad we are in agreement that cleanup is needed, although I expect we'll be in disagreement on the scale and type of cleanup, . I am more in favor of removing factoids not explicitly mentioned in non-fan-based RS within the fictional description. — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Non nobis solum.  20:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I linked to the Peter Parker article because it is a good example of what character articles should strive towards. In this case, I'm mostly suggesting we look at Peter Parker#Fictional character biography as a model to how to structure this article. We should shift the "fictional description" section to a "fictional biography" which would make it a plot summary (and we don't need to rely on secondary sources since primary sources can be used for plot summaries; WP:PLOTCITE). I could probably pull info from 5th Edition books and maybe a few 4th Edition books in a few days but I don't have easy access to the older editions. Maybe  could help in the new year. :) Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too have access to most earlier editions.  So if you have anything in particular you need, please feel free to ping me. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  The PP fictional biography is ~3500 counted by Google docs. Given that includes formatting and other things, it's probably close to 3000 at a guess. I'd say 1000-1250 words would probably be a good target here.  But hard to say.  Hobit (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find enough non-fan-based RS to support that many words in that section, sure. However, I'd argue that basing arguments on how much to include based on words and other articles is not convincing when ignoring underlying PAGs. In this case, verifiability and neutral coverage are better guides than an article that passed its last GAN in 2009. — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Non nobis solum.  22:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, I fail to see how WP:PLOTCITE validates or encourages circumventing the need for secondary sources to show content merits inclusion in the case of characters within a work of fiction rather than the work itself, which is what the how-to guide describes (in my eyes). — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Non nobis solum.  22:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was looking at the above section (WP:PLOTSUM#Characters, locations, etc.) which states: . A plot summary cites the primary source (MOS:FICTIONPLOT: ). Secondary sources are key in other sections (product history, reception, etc) but not required for a plot summary. I don't think that's circumventing anything. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags