Talk:Empire of Iuz

message: I'm responding to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here are my thoughts.
*Adoption of this article by another wikiproject is needed. Perhaps that would get more editors involved in improving the article. At this point, it looks like a draft with several empty sections.
*As a draft article, templates are warranted. I agree with Gavin Collins that the whole point of templates such as "cleanup" and "OR" are to encourage other editors to address the flaws identified by the templates.
*Templates do no harm, especially if their presence is given reasonable justification on the talk page. For example, I was recently embroiled in a huge debate at Talk:Zinfandel#Wine_distribution (USA) POV and accuracy because I felt a POV tag was warranted in one section. In spite of the vehement arguments, the parties involved didn't remove the template because I provided justification for keeping it, and it stayed for three months until I got around to rewriting the questionable section to address my concerns in a way that also satisfied others.
*Which brings me to another point: If you slap a cleanup template onto an article, and you have knowledge of the subject, it behooves you to make improvements to the article to get the template removed. You don't have to do this right away.
*Regarding the specific templates:
**The Notability template can be removed once the lead section is expanded to describe why we need an article on the Empire of Iuz. If this empire is an integral component of the game that affects many Greyhawk campaigns, then explain why. If it's just flavor or background, then this whole article should probably be deleted. In either event the template goes away.
**At first glance, the article looks like Original Research to me, but an OR template doesn't really belong because there's a list of references. It isn't obvious that the article reflects the references, so somebody may come along and stick another OR template in. The way to fix this problem is to provide inline references on specific sentences, not just list a bibliography at the bottom of the article.
**The "nofootnotes" template can be partially addressed through inline references, but it would be nice to have some reliable references from something other than "in-universe" sources. This tag should stay until some can be found.
**The merge template is ridiculous. Get rid of it. It points to an article about a Biblical city, which has nothing to do with this article. I don't see another similar article to which this can be merged. Actually it points to an article called LUZ, not IUZ (I'm capitalizing it because L and I look the same in Wikipedia's default font). I agree the article could be merged to Iuz, not Luz.
I hope this helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: All of the in universe content of this article should be removed. However, there is a problem: all of this article as it is currently written is from an in universe perspective. Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. This is why footnotes are so important when presenting fictional content: they assist the reader to distinguish what is primary source material from synthesis and I have therore added the OR cleanup template, in the hope that someone will comeforward with either a complete rewrite or at least provided footnotes citing the passages to which the plot summary refers to. If footnotes cannot be found, I propose this article be merged or deleted, as its content makes no assertion of real-world notability, nor does its in universe perspective provide any real-world context, content, analysis or critisism of the subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Original Research: Merger Proposal

message: I removed the plot template for three reasons:
#The plot summary simply isn't too long. The entire article is quite short.
#The in-universe template has already been applied. Redundant templates aren't helpful.
#It seems to have been added as a retaliation for the removal of your context tag.
Adding tags isn't meant to be used as a replacement for actual editing. If you're really interested in improving the article, actually edit the article instead of adding as many tags as you think you can "reasonably" justify. Rray (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot summmary, or description of this fictional empire in fictional terms, makes up the whole of this article, as there is no real world content. It was added in good faith, and if your read the section WP:NOT#PLOT, you will see that it is applicable to this article. Please restore the Plot cleanup template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates should be used sparingly. Adding two templates to address one problem isn't helpful. Let's see what others' opinions are before we decide whether or not to restore the template. Rray (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually two problems: one is that the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and the other (which I think you agree) is that it fails WP:WAF. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since solving the one problem would solve the other, having two templates is unnecessary. At any rate, you have asked for third party opinions, I think. So we can look forward to some others weighing in. (I think you and I have both made our positions clear now.) Rray (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you agree there are two cleanup issues to be addressed? I don't understand you perspective whereby you object to one cleanup template, and not the other? Please restore the plot cleanup template so this issue can also be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot template

message: This is an answer to the request for a third-party opinion on the issues in this article.
It's clear that this article needs improvement; the regular editors of this article should consider themselves lucky that it hasn't been put up for deletion yet, as in it's current state and with the trends in Wikipedia leaning towards obliterating content rather than creating and maintaining it, it is extremely unlikely that it would survive the AfD process under WP:PLOT.  I've seen far better articles get deleted.
This discussion shouldn't be about what tags shouldn't or should be on the article; that kind of behavior is only slightly less lame than wikilawyering, as they are non-substantive edits.  What should be happening is the overall improvement of the article.  I'm sure that the two of you combined could have addressed at least some of the concerns that have been brought up as part of this discussion. Celarnor Talk to me 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags and improvement

message: *In the above section, I have highlighted the main problem with this article - it has no real-world content, let alone any reliable sources which can be used to build an article that meets the requirements of WP:FICT. Otherwise, we are at a point where there is stalemate as to what is to be done.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is to be done?

message: Nobody has problems with a merger. Someone has reverted the redirect, and I just restored it. Please, make further edits over at Iuz. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on the merger on Thursday, APril 24th 2008 unless someone objects. Web Warlock (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Iuz]]

message: I say to leave it alone.  Merge if you like, but apparently you can try to delete it over and over and it's indestructible or something.  ;) BOZ (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus again