Talk:Eragon/Archive 3

message: When I read Eragon, I was able to forgive it's similarity to Star Wars. There is a limited amount of ways to begin a story like this. But when I read Eldest and saw noticed how much it felt like both The Two Towers [the defense of Carvahall / the defense of Helm’s Deep] and the Empire Strikes Back [finding that Rider trainer guy / finding Yoda], I thought “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! WTF is this?” It’s just disgusting. What other stories did he borrow from? These are the questions we must ask ourselves. Not just STAR WARS and LOTR. This is why I hate what I call "The Ring Wars" trilogy.
________________________________________________________________________________________
[Note: This Line has been placed by User:Whytecpress to seperate the above unsigned post from his own.]
:Many books/movies/things are like that. Some philologist wrote a paper on it called The Hero With a Thousand Faces(there's probably an article i could link to, but I'm to tired @ the monment.)  the Pendragon Series is similar also.  WhYteCypResS
The Anti-Shur'tugal site has an extensive list of books Inheritance resembles. And the article, I think, has a list of the 'derivative'-ness of the books. Although some could be concidental. Sorry if my previous posts on the talk page haven't been NPOV, but I read Anti-Shur'tugal a LOT... 169.229.121.94 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a teenager when he wrote it...give him a break. Brentt 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT JUST STAR WARS 

message: List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy
I am not an Eragon fan, but I am tired of seeing people with different views flaming each other, arguing on both talk boards and the article itself, the continuing circle of flame-delete-flame-delete war going on Eragon and Eragon-related articles. So, people who would like to have their say about the (arguable) plagiarisms that exist in Inheritance trilogy, now here is a page where you can actually analyse them in a Wikipedian-like manner WITHOUT flaming on neutral articles. And for Eragon fans, here is where you can source counter-critisms and not overflow Eragon/Eldest articles there.
Remember, this is still a Wikipedia article, NOT a free chat board or place to force your opinions and flame each other about it. Remember to cite published reviews (preferably not from Eragon fan sites or anti-Eragon sites) and remain neutral and formal. That includes the talk page. Tinned Butterfly 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created an article, List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy 

message: The following IPs have removed some or all of the Inconsistencies section:
* 212.2.167.122
* 75.57.125.108
It feels like more than that number, though, and reverting the edits has become tedious. If you are considering removing a section of an article discuss it on the article's talk page! Consider that there are a lot of us working on this article, and that you can't remove a lot of work just because you, one person, thinks this should be deleted. I consider failure to justify such actions as vandalism. You may think otherwise, but you are being destructive rather than constructive in your work. UnaLaguna 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: whys is an OBVIOUS crticism article allowed to be on wikipedia! I thought it is was supposed to be a NON-BIASED article but then I see articles like this List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy FLAMING Eragon for things arent facts. someone has to justify it or i will recomend the article for speedy deetion.  Smith Jones 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inconsistencies are facts, or at least some of them were, as far as I could tell. [length of gestation period, anyone?] No book is perfect, and of course no book is completely bad. A neutral article about a book, then should contain thoughts on both sides, or else neither. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.68.69 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People keep on removing parts or all of the Inconsistencies section

message: I know there's a cleanup taskforce tag on the talk page, but it looks like there hasn't been anything discussed in the last week or so. It also doesn't look like it is going anywhere and it doesn't seem to be addressing the whole article, which needs to be cleaned up badly. So I added a complete re-write cleanup tag to the article page and am bringing up some things that need to be done over here.
*The opening paragraph.
::I really don't think this is too bad for the most part. However, the list of countries the movie was released in needs to be scaled down. It's far too long and, since this page is about the book, it is rather unecessary. Maybe simply saying it was released this day and have the movie article go more in depth with specific countries would be better.
*Publication history.
::I deleted the uneccesary dash at the beginning when I added the cleanup tag. The section is ok, but it seems a little wordy for some reason.
*Summary.
::This is where a re-write is in serious need. This is too long. Much too long. A summary should only be a few paragraphs at most. If people want to read a summary, they're going to want to read something short and to the point. This summary is basically regurgitating the entire book back to the reader, not summarizing it. It's not a summary at all if it contains sentences like, "Suddenly two Urgals appear from an alley and attack Brom and Eragon." You could have taken that directly from the book, which defeats the purpose of summarizing it in the first place. Basically, shorten it down. A lot.
*Characters
::Needs to be scaled back to only the most important ones. Perhaps create another page listing all of them, but don't list every single person who was even briefly mentioned in the book on this page. For instance, Gertrude. Yes, I know she was the town healer because I read her description in this article. However, if you had asked me after I read the book to tell you her name without looking it up, I wouldn't have been able to do it. Why? Because she wasn't a main character. This should probably be scaled down to about ten characters, maximum.
*Reviews
::There is only one review listed. There needs to be more than just one here. Period.
*Criticism
::This isn't too terrible. It could probably be kept as is. 
*Inconsistencies
::This is original research and it doesn't seem like a really important section to have (do you see sections for mistakes in movie articles? No). It seems rather petty to have a section devoted to something that doesn't even come up in other articles, it just looks like it's trying to attack the books some more. A lot of this is also taken straight from Anti-Shurtugal, which leads me to my next point. The Anti-Shurtugal sources need to go; they aren't reliable or notable and this has been brought up on several talkpages including the talk page for no original research.
*References/Notes
::Shouldn't it be the other way around? You're noting that #whatever is the ISBN number, but you're referencing those articles. These should probably be switched around.
*External links
::This needs to be divided between official and unofficial sites. Anti-Shurtugal should probably go since there isn't a link to someone from the opposite bias there (a fan-site). The other two sites should go as well since they were created due to the movie. If the soundtrack review should be included, it should go on the movie article. However, the sword one shouldn't be here at all as this is simply advertising the site. The site doesn't add anything to the article(s).
I'll probably go through some of this stuff and help clean it up, but I can't do it all by myself. If anybody else would be willing to help out, that would be great. --pIrish 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THE ARTICLE ERAGON IS NOT SIGNIFFICANYLT WORSE THAN THE REST OF THE INHERITANCE PARTICLES JUST LEAVE IT ALONE! PLEASE! Smith Jones 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you the one who wrote the majority of this article? If you are, when you wrote it, you agreed to the fact that your work can be edited mercilessly. If you aren't, why don't you think it is any worse than the other articles? While I do agree that every article pertaining to this series needs a bit of work, this one in particular is a trainwreck, as is evident by the points I brought up. That aside, I will be editing it and I'm sure others will be as well. That is one of the primary principles Wikipedia was founded on. Thank you. --pIrish 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write the article i just dont think that the mosst of the article i S ALL THAT BAD i agree with some of yourpoints like the original research but some of the rhtoses are just sniptick. my idea is to rewrite the summary to condense it. then Smith Jones 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You completely freaked out at my message, capslock and all. My only assumption was that you have some sort of attachment to the article and don't want to see it changed for some personal reason. I've already done a ton of cleanup on the article, all of which have improved it, not deteriorated it. I'm not seeing what your fuss is about. All of my points are very valid, just ask any reliable editor. It's not nitpicking when you want the article to be good and of the highest quality. --pIrish 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, so movie and TV articles don't have sections on inconsistencies. I'll ignore the "goofs" sections which are identical in nature to our inconsistencies section. So yeah, I totally agree we should remove that section from Wikipedia ¬_¬. D'oh! UnaLaguna 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me a film article that is listed as a featured/good article that has this section. --pIrish 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Casablanca (film) has an "errors" section which addressing the same thing. It is featured. I'll ignore all the articles about films adapted from book that have inconsistencies sections. UnaLaguna 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! I am truly impressed with your achievement. Afterall, it is rather difficult to find one of the only featured articles with a bloopers section that hasn't been taken off the list yet. Good job! Also, inconsistencies between a film and the book it was adapted from are not the same as bloopers. We're dealing with the article for the book, not the movie, so that point is moot. Now, as to the section for this article? It still can't go in, even though you managed to find that article. The points were either original research or they were copied almost verbatim from an unreliable source. Both of which are strictly against Wiki policy. --pIrish 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: The novel starts out with Eragon finding a blue stone that turns out to be a egg. he takes the egg to slaon after the butcher doesnt want to buy it he decides to keep it at home until it hatches. then he receives the gedway ignnasia that marks him as a Dragon Rider. shrotly aftewards, he meets the storyteller Brom of Carvahall and learns about dragons, the history of the Dragon Riders, and Galbatorix. It is after that then Eragon names his dragon, Saphira.
Eragon raises Saphira shortly until two evil creatures known as the Ra'zac come to his vilalge nad attack his home, killing his uncle and forcing them to fleet. ERagon runs away rom Carvahall then, accompanied by Bromm on his revenge quest to get vengeance on the RA'zac who killed his uncle.
After confronting a band of urgals, Eragon, saphira, and BROM decide to go to see the Varden, a rebellion movement who is trying to defeat Galbatorix. They get assistance from Brom's friend Jode and then Eragon receives a fortune from an mysterious witch calle d Angela. They continue onto their journey and are ambushed by Ra'zac, only to be rescued by Murtagh. This is sad because Brom dies. 
Eragon decides to rescue the elf Arya from an evil sorcerer named Durza and hs band of Urgals. He does so but is captured and needs to be rquestuced by Saphira and Murtagh. Murtagh manages to shoot Durza between the eygs and make him vanish but this is only temporary. Later, they find out the directions to the Varden and are able to travel there, even after being pursued by Kull, Galbatorix's elite URgal troops.
Upon arriving at the varden, Eragon is greeted and Murtag is imprisoned by the leader, Ajihad, the leader of the Varden. There, they befriend Orik, a dwarf, and revive Arya as well as meet back up with Angela the witch who makes Eragon's prophecy and her pet cat Solembum, who can shapeshift. The safety of their stay at the Varden city of Tronjheim is broken when Galbatorix attacks with his entire army of Urgals and Kulls that threaten to destroy everything. The Varden manages to defeat them and finally Eragon stabs his enemy Durza through the heart, destroying the shade. Unfortunately, the result of the Battle of Farthen-Dur cauises him to go unconscious but he is rescued by a mysterious stage called Oromis, who beckons him to travel to the elven ctiy of Elemsmera, where he will be trained. 
----------
I wrote a new summary for the aritcle please cnegge me gfebdacke. Smith Jones 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do NOT add that into the article yet. It's a great length for a summary, however, it badly needs to be checked for grammar and spelling. I haven't read through it either as I'm pressed for time. I can do that during my lunch break in about an hour and a half, but I don't have time to yet. If you can fix the errors, then go ahead and add it in, but please fix them first and then triple check to make sure you got it right. --pIrish 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay i'll leave it out but i thought that it should be put in the article so thatt people can haveve a chance to raed over it and make thier own edits but now that you tell me i wont put it back in utnil its at least been checked. i agreed with you that the original summarry is murch too long and really too dettailed to be less than ca cha pter analysis. It also violates NPOV and stuff. Smith Jones 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with you putting that in, word for word, is that it's going to get reverted because it looks like vandalism. By putting your version on the talk page, as you have done, people can edit, check, whatever, and then put a fairly completed version in the article, where it will then be nitpicked to death. It shouldn't be editing to fix spelling, grammar, and capitalization once it's actually in the article, it should be what tense to use or re-arranging sentences to sound better. To be blunt, nothing should ever go into an article if there are more than five errors in the first two sentences. As soon as I save this message, I'm going to go over it and try to fix what I can. --pIrish 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: tttthankky you if you need any help pleas ask mE. Smith Jones 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just put an edited version of your summary into the article. Let me know what you think, though I won't be able to respond to any messages for a few hours. Thanks. --pIrish 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i like your verion its much more clearer and polished than mine. i think it mide bit a good idea to add some links to the summary. Smith Jones 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just wanted to get it in there to replace the current novel and I knew either you, me, or someone else would add them in eventually. Thanks! --pIrish 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, considering that the movie was made from the book and the movie was basically a synopsis of the book, I really don't see your point. The current summary is a vast improvement to the novel it was before. Could you at least point out where the summary sides more with the movie than the book? While doing this, please remember that this is a summary, not a regurgitation of the book. It's supposed to summarize the main points of the book, hence, a summary. --pIrish 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry the article appears to have been fixed. The last I saw, a synopsis of the movie had replaced the book, with certain details that were changed for movie purposes (ex. Brom being killed by Durza, instead of Raz'ac). Someone has fixed it, so no harm done. Bio 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All righty. I was going to say, I was pretty confused there for a minute. ;-) --pIrish 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary re-write completed

message: HAHAHAHA Vandalism?
I think that the editing of the Eragon articles should be restricted to members only, or a few members.
There too many people pranking these pages by needlessly editing stuff here.  Would be good to stop that, it means a lot less work cleaning up.
Also, I think that only the base of criticism, plus a few examples should be posted, with a citation, and a link to articles or sites which have all the information ready, rather than listing it all here.N Dot W 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, absolutely not. There aren't enough edits to the page to consider full protection at this time, let alone vandalism edits. I'd be genuinely shocked if we even managed to get semi-protection for it. For now, I suggest you just watch the page and revert vandalism when you see it. What we have now for the criticism secion is exactly what you described. It's pretty short, it gets the point across and highlights examples, and it has linked notable sources to back it up. No reason to slim something down that's pretty good as is. --pIrish 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical Plonkers

message: "They travel through several cities, and Eragon is shocked by the way that the Empire is harming the land and its poop. Finally, after obtaining information in the town of Teirm, bob concludes that the Ra'zac reside in Dras-Leona, a city. There, Eragon, Saphira, and bob are lured into an ambush by the Ra'zac. Although they are rescued by a stranger, Murtagh, bob is gravely injured and dies shortly after geting poop flinged at him — but not before revealing that he was a poop eater whose deceased turd shared Saphira's name."
Yeah...
--Wassamatta 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it. I'm not too sure how long it sat that way, but it would have been nice if someone had reverted it sooner, especially considering that there are many people who watch this page for edit changes. I am slightly irritated that you took the time to post this message, but didn't revert it for some reason or another. If you don't know how, I do apologize. Vandalism needs to be reverted as soon as it's seen, and anybody can revert it. If you or anyone else doesn't know how, just go to this page. --pIrish 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I DO know how to revert it, but I wasn't sure in what way to change it, as I have not fully read the book.
I just informed. I guess I should have looked it up in the history archives. Next time, I will.
Has anyone been concerned to semi-protect it due to the ongoing vandalism?
--74.133.238.232 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok if you weren't sure, it happens. Protecting the page has been suggested before, but, to be honest, it doesn't really need to be protected. Even if it was, it can't stay protected forever. Yes, it consistently gets vandalized, but not enough to warrent protection. It'd be easier to just revert the vandalism than go through the trouble of protecting it and then possibly denying access to those who may want to edit the article for the better. Times to protect usually occur when there are many edits of vandalism by several different IPs in a short amount of time. If it's just one person, they can be reported at WP:AIV. If it's just sporadic edits of vandalism, it really is just easier to revert the edits. --pIrish 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I smell a VANDALISM

message: I read Eragon and I'm going to die if I don't read Eldest but I can't get my hands on a freakn copy of it AAAAAAAUUUUGHHH!
:You could always just watch The Empire Strikes Back ;) UnaLaguna 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!

message: I nominated the Criticisms of the Inheritance Trilogy article for deletion. If you have time please see the article and then go to this article's AfD entry and vote. So far its 7-1 in favor of deleting. 
The reason I nominated it is because it's a very short article that doesn't have enough new information to warrant a new section in any of the Inheritance Trilogy articles let alone a whole new article. And attempts to make it longer have persistently been OR and personal musings of editors. Even though I agree with most of the musings, and its obvious to most people that the books are derivative and not great writing (by the standards of proffesional adult fantasy writers atleast, but arguably a great achievment for a teenager), its still against [[Wikipedia:no original research]|no original research policy]] to have such musings. And all published sources pretty much repeat the same criticisms, which can easily fit into the main article. Brentt 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of Inheritance Triology article AfD nomination

message: I know absoutely nothing about Eragon (In fact, I came to the page for information), and the page is so heavily vandalized I cannot begin to understand it, and I can't find a decent place to just revert the entire article to. I'd just pick through and delete the vandalism, but I know so little on the subject, that wouldn't make the article any easier to read. If someone who knows the subject could fix this article, that would be greatly appreciated. --Sakaki22 08:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I have been reading all these discussions for awhile now, and what I can't understand is why people just can't pick up a book and read it anymore. Of course, the book won't be perfect, no book is. You can hardly write a book without it being similar to someone else's work. I personally enjoyed reading the book, but just reading the book. I don't feel the need to create my own website for or against it. Have you ever written your own book? It's no mystery that it's going to be difficult, anything you've read or seen in your lifetime is going to influence anything you write. Sure, the book is similar to a lot of things, but a lot of fantasy books are. I just can't believe that so many people are making such a big deal out of it. Is it really going to matter in ten years whether you didn't like the book or not? I doubt it. Why waste time complaining? Honestly, I challenge anybody reading this to just pick up the book and read it,unbiased, without comparing it to something else. I don't think the fact that it's similar to something else makes it good. I liked the storyline and the adventure in it. If you don't like it, that's okay, but do you really need to devote all your time against it? Why not just let other people read it? What can it hurt? --12.22.30.78 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and this relates to our Wikipedia article how? UnaLaguna 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Book 

message: I know we're not here just to downgrade the book, but I really think we ought to add an article on the controversies over the derivative nature of the books.  All we have right now is an article on reviews, with just a passing mention of it borrowing from star wars and LOTR.  We don't have to list all the points, but some more information would be good.
If Harry Potter can have a full article dedicated to it's controversy, then I say this series merits one as well.N Dot W 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article. It was deleted. There just wasn't enough controversy for it to have an entire article, rather than just a section. It was also turning into a personal playground for people to add original research without citing from any reliable sources. --pIrish Arr! 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism article 

message: It might not be particularly wonderful, but it's cited and it's there. This is something which it seems as if nobody else has mentioned, and if you look at any other reasonable article about a novel or book then it has a section discussing the publication history of the novel.
Hopefully that edit will get us substantially closer to a GA-class article. UnaLaguna 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a much-needed background/publication history section 

message: I'm no expert on novel articles, but I think we have a good B-class article rather than a bad B-class article. Having said that, we could get someone who is an expert on novel articles to push us in the right direction and who will know where this stands within the B-class threshold. That is, we put it up for peer review. I'd suggest putting it up for Wikiproject Novels peer review rather than the regular flavour as that peer review deals explicitly with novels, much like how I put Eragon (video game) (currently the only GA in Wikiproject Inheritance) up for Computer and Video Game Peer Review rather than regular Peer Review.
Unless anyone can think of anything significant this article could use, because I can't, I'll put it up for peer review within the next couple of days. UnaLaguna 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a peer review?