Talk:Eragon

message: there has been no discussion here for a couple months, so I archived the previous talk page.  Now we have a clean slate to discuss on!  Spinach Dip 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] created

message: These have some useful information in them which should definitely be incorporated into the article:
* Recorded audio of interview with Christopher Paolini, from Eye On Books
* Recorded audio of interview with Christopher Paolini
* "Philip Pullman, Tamora Pierce, and Christopher Paolini Talk Fantasy Fiction"
* Teen Reads interviews - particularly interesting is the fact that Paolini originally wanted Eragon to become a film, not a book.
* A set of interviews with Paolini from Shur'tugal
Una LagunaTalk 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some potentially useful sources 

message: The plot summary appears to have been radically changed, from this to this. The new version is slightly longer (835 words instead of 815). There are a few issues with punctuation and the like which could be easily corrected. In terms of summarising the plots they're both pretty good, though this new one contains a few unnecessary details. However, instead of consisting of 7 good-lengthed paragraphs, it instead consists of nineteen, most consisting of just one or two sentences. This gives two problems: the plot summary now needlessly takes up much more space, and if we made this a GA candidate, the GA reviewer will note the short paragraphs. One or two one/two-sentence paragraphs is acceptable, but the number we have here makes it quite choppy and much less smooth to read. In its current state, it might even result in a GA fail.
Resolving these issues would give us a plot summary very similar to the one we previously had. Therefore I think we should reinstate the old plot summary. Any objections? Una LagunaTalk 09:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already reinstated it. The new one was needlessly wordy and had way too many details that weren't necessary. The short paragraphs were also a huge problem. It was better before, both in length and necessary details. ...Though the old version could still using some cleaning up and making it more concise as well. --132 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to plot summary 

message: A link to a source was broken, I retrieved the page with Internet Archive. But also this link to Barnes and Noble has problems: now it talks about the second book, Eldest, not Eragon! Internet Archive gives various result, but which one shall we pick? --KingFanel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: Has anyone noted the similarities and differences between Eragon and Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern stories? 69.42.7.212 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and yes; however we cannot mention this in the article without a reliable source to back the claim up. So far, nobody here has found such a source, so we haven't mentioned Dragonriders of Pern in the article. Una LagunaTalk 07:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragonriders of Pern 

message: The plot summary mentions Eragon's use of Za'roc--presumably a sword or dagger--but the word occurs only once, with no explanation of its nature or significance. (Not everyone has read the book.)drone5 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out - replaced the one instance of Za'roc with "his sword". In this case the specific sword used is not particularly significant. Una LagunaTalk 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Za'roc? 

message: I don't know if this is in any way relevant, but there is a fairly blatant typo on page 311 (paperback version, not largeprint). The sentence goes: "...-that fact was oft repeated-..." when it should have been 'Often' instead. It could just be a little comment about the editing or something similar. --Stripy Socks (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most books have one or two typos in them. As always, this is only worth including if it's notable. That is, it is mentioned in reliable sources. Una LagunaTalk 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The word 'oft' is a legitimate word and in this particular context is correctly applied. No typo has been made, and no grammar errors have been made. No comment needs to be made on the editing of this book. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/oft --Jim42jim42Talk 22:24, 21 Aug 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: I'd like to help take this article up to FA, but my idea involves quite a lot of reorganization and expansion so I would like to first get a consensus. I would split background into two sections, Concept and development and inspirations and influences. Then a genre and themes section along with a style section would be needed. Finally, a publication history section will be added. Ideas? Derild4921☼ 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganize and expansion for FA 

message: Eragon - Aragorn, Farthen Dûr-Barad-dûr (note exotic circumflex), Khudzul-Nazgul... I can't be the only one to notice how Paolini has gutted Tolkien's works. The difference is that Tolkien was a notable Oxford linguist, expert in Norse and Anglo-Saxon (and not bad with Finnish either), whereas Paolini seems to be writing fanfic. I doubt Paolini speaks any of the aforementioned dead languages, let alone Finnish, but if someone wants to correct me, do! --MacRusgail (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, you are not the only one to have noticed this (see here, here, here, here...). However, alleged plagiarism of specific names have not been discussed by reliable sources; any content concerning name plagiarism would count as original research. The same goes for most detailed criticisms levvied at the book: it's not that we haven't noticed them or we refuse to acknowledge their existence, but simply that they're not notable enough for inclusion beyond "similar plot", "similar setting" etc. Thanks, Una LagunaTalk 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolkienistic plagiarism 

message: The Film Adaptation section mentions that the Eragon film is the thirteenth-highest-grossing movie in the live-action fantasy genre, highest-grossing movie with a dragon at its focal point, and the second-highest movie in the sword-and-sorcery subgenre.  It cites three charts on Box Office Mojo, last retrieved in 2007.  The site is continuously updated, and Eragon has since been superseded by other movies, dropping it to 25th on the fantasy list, 2nd on the dragon list, and 3rd on the sword-and-sorcery list.  I'll make the necessary changes for the latter two, but it's mentioned in the Article that Eragon's position on the Fantasy list is lower (21st instead of 13th) when adjusting for inflation.  I couldn't find that information on the site, so I'm going to leave that sentence alone so someone with better knowledge of inflation than I can properly edit it.
Additionally, should something be added to those particular sentences once they are updated to clarify the fact that they are subject to change and may possibly be outdated/inaccurate by the time a reader sees them?  "As of March 2012," or something like that? -Rycr (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Information 

message: From the Genre section: "The book has been compared to other books of the fantasy genre such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings." Star Wars is not a book, and arguably it's not fantasy. 98.245.172.221 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars is a fantasy book? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514052410/http://www.shurtugal.com/?id=series/christopher/qanda to http://www.shurtugal.com/?id=series/christopher/qanda
*Added  tag to http://catalog.dclibrary.org/vufind/Record/ocm52251450/Reviews
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304024712/http://au.rottentomatoes.com:80/m/eragon/ to http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/eragon/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114233018/http://au.rottentomatoes.com:80/features/rtawards/movie_2006.php?r=10&mid=1159341&type=m to http://au.rottentomatoes.com/features/rtawards/movie_2006.php?r=10&mid=1159341&type=m
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114180306/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/entertainment/2003476247_eragon15.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2003476247_eragon15.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=8550
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.shurtugal.com/movieviewer.php?type=rev&id=119486
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i16891de0eed2dafe81a7b3b2da45259f
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain.  This series would qualify.  Anyone care to add it?  Tamtrible (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222073206/http://powells.com/authors/paolini.html to http://www.powells.com/authors/paolini.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article states that Paolini's parents "self published" Eragon. I can't find any reliable sources on the matter but my understanding is that they had founded a publisher called Paolini International LLC sometime around 1997 and decided to use it to publish there son's work. As such I think the term 'self-published' is a little misleading. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published? 

message: The redirect Adurna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Adurna]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]