Talk:Dragonlance

message: I ran across this rather odd statement:
: Hickman had previously preached as a Mormon missionary in Java for two years, and uses Indonesian in Dragonlance spells.
Naively, one might read this to mean that one must learn Indonesian in order to cast the spells. Is it instead is a reference to the spell names within the rulesbook?—RJH (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference to the fact that the words used in the spells incorporate elements of the Indonesian language, I believe. Doniago (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at the original source should clear that up. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian 

message: I have edited the area that was marked as confusing to make it sound better. It is the "Characters" section. Any objections to the way I edited it? If not, I'll remove the "Confusing Paragraph" marker in a few days.Vyselink (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes a lot more sense now, and it's neat to read the full quote! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Section 

message: The creation of Krynn is not a sufficiently notable concept for an article on the subject to stand on its own. As such, Creation (Dragonlance) should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That entire article is written from an in-universe perspective, with zero real world context, and it's been tagged as such for three and a half years.  That detailed history could definitely be merged into the history portion of this article. <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 14:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, when Neelix has done a "merge", it has been more like a redirect. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And this case would likely be no different; the Creation (Dragonlance) article is rampant with original research tags and no statements are directly sourced. If information about the creation of Krynn is going to be added to the Dragonlance article, it would be safer to find new information to add than to select a statement from the Creation (Dragonlance) article and hope it's accurate. Neelix (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If we knew who had added the sources, we could get them to help source individual statements from the two sources already listed. <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a while ago:  and . 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[Creation (Dragonlance)]] 

message: Needs at least some sort of coverage of the Dragonlance comics published by DC, or at least a mention.76.226.202.223 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! 99.126.204.164 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comics 

message: We should go ahead with a merge on this one. Web Warlock (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On which one? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: still looking for a good place. Web Warlock (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I noticed while reading this that there was at least one glaring inconsistency regarding the development of the setting.  Specifically, the article states TSR created Dragonlance as a campaign setting for the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) roleplaying game in 1982. They published the first sourcebook, Dragonlance Adventures, in 1987.  Am I mistaken in thinking this is wrong?  Should it be reworded?  Just a thought.  Voraxith (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are saying.  Reading the rest of the article will shine a light on that for clarity.  The Hickmans devised the Dragonlance setting in 1982 when Tracy was hired by TSR, and TSR went ahead with getting Tracy and Margaret Weis to work on writing.  The first novel and the first adventure module were finally released in 1984. I'm guessing that there were no actual RPG materials for Dragonlance other than the adventures at first? That would mean that the 1987 Dragonlance Aventures book was indeed the first Dragonlance RPG sourcebook. BOZ (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Inconsistencies 

message: the Characters section has a link for Heroes of the Lance, but this redirects to a video game, rather than anything that explains who the heroes are. and I do not think that a video game is one of the characters of the setting. Maybe it should link to the characters page, but it is alphabetical and really doesnt have a list of the heroes. maybe the character list page could include those heroes at the front to give at least the protagonists names and then people can see them in the alphabetical list rather than having to see the list on the video game page? shadzar-talk 05:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Hahnchen, as that is the user who redirected it to the video game. 2601:D:9400:3CD:CCA3:BBBD:46FE:DF58 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for Heroes of the Lance on Google.  Top hits are for the game, which is a notable subject in its own right, with a standalone article.  Whereas the List of Dragonlance characters article is in-universe fan service, which even if it were arranged so that Heroes of the Lance were not a 2 line stub, would still be unsuited as an encyclopedia article. - hahnchen 18:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

text: The lead has been edited to link directly to List of Dragonlance characters#Heroes of the Lance, it's the second time in that paragraph that we link to the same article though, it's probably unnecessary. - hahnchen 18:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: probably not needed to link twice in one section, but having a link in a section about "characters" to a video game is misleading. your attitude and the fact that Google has the video game as its "top hit" for the phrase in now way means that it should be the only thing ever linked to because of popularity when such a phrase is used. you should always link to something based on the context it is being used in. if linking to the video games is needed, then maybe a section for them is in order for the Dragonlance article. maybe if someone expanding the group section on the list of characters page to name who belongs to the group and then link to that section via the characters if a link from this article to it is needed. it could only improve the list article itself by not having to go to the video game to find out who that group mentioned actually is. whether it needs to be linked is entirely up to all of you still working on the project. it just didnt feel right linking to the video game form the Characters section is all i was saying. shadzar-talk 11:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad linking? 

message: Krynn/Ansalon is used as one of the domains in the Genesis LPMud game. I think that is a fitting example of how Dragonlance has spread outside D&D, and therefore should be put in the Media section to other video games based on Krynn. User:Doniago has demanded secondary sources to prove the significance of that. I think it would be nice to have secondary sources (Maloni, Kelly; Baker, Derek; Wice, Nathaniel (1994). Net Games. Random House / Michael Wolff & Company, Inc.  might have something to say about that, but I do not have access to that), but in my opinion it is still within the limits of Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content with the Genesis LPMud as a source only, because 1) that homepage verifies the statement and 2) Krynn/Ansalon is a "prominent setting" in the Genesis LPMud game, it is not a "passing mention". Any thoughts on that?
Of course if anyone could check Net Games, that might bring us forward a lot here without discussion. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. I have concerns that Genesis itself isn't a notable game; I looked at the linked article and a number of the sources are the MUD itself. I don't really want to go combing through it, but I think the best solution, as noted, would be an independent source that noted the fact that Ansalon appears in the game, whether it's Net Games or a different one. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genesis LPMud

message: If these modules cannot be sourced to reliable, secondary sources, then this content should be abridged and added to the main article, or otherwise removed altogether. czar 21:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks]] 

message: The end of the first section of the page includes the following:
"Since February 2009, the fifth age, the Age of Mortals, has been used."
I believe that date is incorrect - both the Sovereign Press products and before that the Saga System were set in the Age of Mortals (for evidence, see the publication date of https://www.amazon.com/Age-Mortals-Dragonlance-Campaign-Companion/dp/1931567107 and the publication date and Setting section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonlance:_Fifth_Age).
Thanks,
Wanderer792 (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably out of date, too.  Any sourced information you can provide would be helpful. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of shift to Age of Mortals 

message: This entire source is a self-published (Grin publishing is not in any sense a real publishing house) Master's thesis. It should be removed for not even coming close to meeting the WP standards for an RS, specifically WP:RSSELF. I'm going to remove it, and put a citation needed tag for the information that it currently provides in the hope to find better sources. Vyselink (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the source that you removed was added in 2013 by User:Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf, Nadine (2010). Religious Concepts in Fantasy Literature.  

message: With a recent addition to the Dragonlance page I wanted to introduce the analysis of races and racism - a known controversy about Dungeons & Dragons - done in academic secondary sources. For Dragonlance this controversy ends so far on positive note, that the setting critizes racist tendencies and emphasizes the need for different fictional species to work together to avert disaster. My edits were undone as "obviously harmful claims of racism". This was not at all my intention, so I clearly was not sucessfull in my presentation and summary of the secondary sources. I wish the anonymous IP editor who changed it would join this discussion to straighten things out.
In general I ask anyone for input how this topic could be presented in a better and unambiguous way based on the secondary sources I have used. Thanks everyone! Daranios (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you should not be adding racist, deranged Marxist trash like this into pop culture articles. The moron who wrote that source actually uses the word "intersectional" in the title of his work. These are the type of people crying on Twitter because orcs are depicted as evil. Garbage like this should not be given the light of day, per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.99.100.254 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear about what you're going though, man. 2601:243:1C80:6740:59CF:B77D:BCE8:D61D (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Races and Racism

message: Excuse me? Why is the color of Dragonlance's human's skin mentioned here? And if it does, why not for the other races? If anything, the whole thing is focused on Copper/Bronze/Golden Bozaks =D. Come on, no need to bring your nonsense [51] Young, Helen (2016). Race and Popular Fantasy Literature: Habits of Whiteness. New York, Oxon: Routledge. p. 42-43, 93. ISBN 978-1-138-85023-1 "book" in here.
45.94.118.118 (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because that is what the referenced sources discuss. If there are sources with another viewpoint, you are welcome to add them. Deagol2 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My point, if it was not obvious in the first place is that not every "source" should be brought in here with all the questionable ideas from that "source". As far as I recall (although not having memorized all the Dragonlance books by heart) it does not focus on "white" humans. It does not even focus on "humans" for that matter, and even if it did, "humans" there are not "humans" here, "humans" there are in the set of elves, bozaks, kenders, dragons; colour of their skin is irrelevant (although color of dragon's or bozak's scales is relevant). 45.94.118.118 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Does the setting focus primarily on non-white humans? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it focuses on Dragons, Bozaks and magical spears which kill them... And also kenders. Of course, it all depends on a point of view, but it very definitely does not focus on <<"white" humans>> or <<"non-white" humans>>. 45.94.118.118 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous IP is correct. These sources although verifiable, are given undue weight of their opinion being fact. We can make note that reviewers or analysts have made the opinion of it focusing on white humans, but it shouldn't be presented so a general fact. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections, but isn't that what the section already does with "...some critics have suggested..."? Deagol2 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Any commentary or opinions on the subject should be moved to Reception or an Analysis section if there's enough content to make such a section. Considering theres only two sources so far, "some critics" is innacurate.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Races - focused on "white" humans? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion