Talk:Conan chronologies

message: Should we add a section covering the major issues in the stories, why some see one story should go before another, etc? (fully cited of course.)
Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be interesting for the Howard only stories.  The others are completely unmanagable.  You'd end up writing a whole book! ;-)  Marek and Ripke give reasons, but I'm not sure how in depth they are.  Why not give it a shot?Tim (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree pretty much.  I'm sure I could do a little work on it, and the detail could be added later my other editors. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major issues

message: The Joe Marek Chronology was actually created before the Dale Rippke Chronology, as a criticism of the classic Miller/Clark, de Camp chronologies. Dale Rippke agreed with some of Marek's conclusions, but felt he didn't go far enough with them and thus created his own chronology. Therefore, Wikipedia's chronology of these chronologies is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten so that Marek comes before Rippke. 68.145.128.30 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology of the Chronologies

message: There are a lot of independent fan theories pushed around about the chronologies, but fan theories and self published fan zines have been removed as unreliable. All that remains are two sources: 
* Howard's own thoughts, which are reliable in a sense, but not independent. 
* The Miller/Clark/de Camp timeline. 
I'm looking into whether this source is reliable and independent. An obvious look would be no: de Camp was just another author of the fiction, and can't be independent. It also appears that the timelines were themselves published in the Conan books, making them an extension of the fiction rather than an independent study like a newspaper or journal.
But to be diligent, I want to explore all the angles. If I'm missing anything, let me know, and I'll look into it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  miller / clark / de camp timeline 

message: How does this page assert notability?  That appears to be the heart of the recent edit war. We have, after all, a set of stories here with some popularity but relatively scant scholarship, chiefly written by second and third-tier genre-fiction writers. The popularity of the series merits a page, certainly, but do we need subpages for fan scholarship?  MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote the opening paragraph to help establish notability and added an appropriate reliable source. In the case of Conan, interactive fan activity over the years, including the "chronology game" has had a major impact on the development of the popular culture image of the character and even effected the commercial aspects of the franchise; and this fan activity itself has become the subject of academic study. Also I rewrote the second paragraph that had borderline OR (source of one of the original complaints by Shooterwalker) and cited an reliable source. I believe that these edits should help address the issues with this article. Theagenes (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fans write about a lot of stuff, but until a third party notices or a reliable sources published rather than just fans , we at Wikipedia dont care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bertetti article I cited is a reliable third party published by an academic press that discusses the history of the chronology controversy and why is it is significant for the Conan franchise. This establishes notability of the topic in general. That said see below.Theagenes (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Robert E. Howard scholars like Theagenes, who are also fans, are the only reliable sources on this subject matter. Third parties can publish articles all they like, but they're not going to be reliable because they have absolutely no knowledge of the scholarship. Just like you, TRPoD. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are both painting with too broad a brush. Dantai, WP has strict guidelines for reliabilty and notabilty. Some fans scholars meet these criteria, some do not. Gray is not a reliable source and his chronology is not notable. I have removed it again. Marek is reliable but his chronology is only notable as to how it influenced Rippke. So that has been removed as well. The comparixon chart is unnecessary once these other chronologies have been removed. I had this article in good shape as of September 9 and had addressed all of the concerns. Please stop trying to add back in material that doesn't meet WP criteria. TRPoD is correct in this case.Theagenes (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Conan chronologies. 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/20080510182300/http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html to http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510182300/http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html to http://www.amrathelion.com/conan_indestructible/default.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328032145/http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=8618 to http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=8618
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) 22:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified