Talk:The Wheel of Time/Archive 1

message: On the last edit, the comment logged was along the lines that something in the previous version was a spoiler.  
Wikipedia explicitly permits spoilers in articles (in fact, a full wikipedia article on a creative work will inevitably contain spoilers) - however, it's been recognised that users should be warned about this before reading articles.  See Wikipedia contains spoilers for details of the policy. --Robert Merkel 
:61.9.73.249/61.9.73.250 has been changing links to point to Wheel of Time, the. If you are this person, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Brion 11:30 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)
While we're at it, Brion, these are individual books, aren't they?  I mean, one can go into a bookstore and purchase "The Great Hunt" by itself, right?  If that's the case, then the series name should be removed from the title--titles are only for identification, and should not express any relationships. --165.79.13.191
:The slash-subpage titles are hideous, yes. --Brion
Nothing in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions specify conventions for articles. Besides, the correct name of the series is "The Wheel of Time" not "Wheel of Time." --61.9.73.249
:It specifies nothing but conventions for article titles. If the "the" must be included (itself debatable, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), it should be The Wheel of Time, not the insane Wheel of Time, the (which is an ugly hack for paper encyclopedias which must sort themselves alphabetically -- we in the 21st century have a search function which is far more powerful). If we wanted to cripple people through extra typing for no reason like that, somebody would have mentioned it. We also don't say anything about "don't poke yourself in the eye with a stick." ;)  --Brion 12:06 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)
::Yes, Brion, this *should* be moved to The Wheel of Time, as "Wheel of Time" is ambiguous. (I can't do it myself, as the destination has an edit history.) Mkweise 23:09 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
I've converted the article to the standard format, i.e. a small number of decent-sized articles. All those red links were a disaster waiting to happen. 50 one sentence stubs were on their way, as soon as a sufficiently motivated fan happened along. 
Still to do: huge amounts of delinking. -- Tim Starling 09:13, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

message: As a rule, the intro should just introduce the topic and perhaps roughly summarize the remainder of the article. The current intro is going on about his naming schemes and such, small details that may be important but don't really deserve intro space. I'm not sure how to reorganize this. Deco 21:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The inclusion of WOT as well as WoT seemed like overkill, so I excised it.
I removed extraneous detail from the second paragraph in the introduction and added a few relevant facts, including the date of our latest information on the length of the series.
The first paragraph contains the sentence: 
: 'Jordan is considered in some circles to be the spiritual heir to the high fantasy style popularized by J. R. R. Tolkien.'  
While I personally believe that this statement is out of place in a non-biographical article, and a possible violation of NPOV even in a biographical article, I decided to get public comment prior to modifying it.
:I agree that this sentence is completely inappropriate. I've read all the books in the series, and I've read other fantasy as well (including Tolkien). I very much doubt Robert Jordan is the "spiritual heir" to Tolkien. I think the sentence is POV from the point of view of someone in this circle of fans. --Firsfron 05:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a true statement — but it's also a classic example of Wikipedia: Avoid weasel terms. Vague attribution is worse than none at all. --Deco 05:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we seem to be in agreement regarding the unsuitability of that statement, I have removed it effective 26FEB2005. If there are no further comments in the next few days regarding this recent edit, I'll remove this thread from the discussion page. --The Confessor 15:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't usually remove discussions unless the page is getting full, and then we put them into an archive. --Eric119 19:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I think I'll just sit down, shut up, and follow Wikipedia procedure. ;-) --The Confessor 23:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding The Introduction: 

message: The current Character/Place/Concept glossaries seem a bit too inelegant. For starters, many of the characters and concepts are deserving of their own articles. Can somebody point me to another Wikipedia subject with a large internal vocabulary that uses a Glossary, so I can see about possibly 'borrowing' its format?  --The Confessor, posted 18FEB2005
* Part of the problem with the "Concepts" page is that it acts as a "None Of The Above" page covering anything that isn't places, history or characters.  I think we should combine the "Concepts/Races" and "Concepts/Societies" sections with the "Places" page, creating a comprehensive "Cultures (by peoples and geography)" page instead.  Concepts can then remain as a place to talk about the intangibles: the Power, the Prophecies, etc.  Marblespire 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Glossaries 

message: An anonymous user added this:
:This has brought a good deal of Critcism to the series by conlang enthusiasts however, who see this approach as sloppy and uncoordinated, especially as Jordan tries to pass the Old tongue off as a fully constructed conlang.
I have removed it pending substantiation.
--Phil | Talk 14:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Visit either [www.spinnoff.com/zbb spinoff], the conlang mailing list, [Langmaker.com Langmaker.com] or [Artlangs.com Artlangs.com], and the answer will be the same -the opinion is that it isn't a proper conlang (simply a jumble of words) or, if you count that as a conlang, it is an incredibly sloppily done one. Indeed, amongst conlangers, it is the main example of exactly what not to do. --Referenced Anonymous user
::I think he's right about this, that the Old Tongue is not a properly or fully constructed conlang. On the other hand, I don't really believe it was ever intended to be, any more than the random smattering of alien or fantasy language encountered in various movies. It's just too much effort for so little dialogue. Here's a page with a quote from RJ and some links:
:: http://www.steelypips.org/wotfaq/2_nondark/2.4_yore/2.4.05_old-tongue.html
:: http://www.drosi.de/wot/wt_tongu.htm
::Deco 21:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged criticism of "Old Tongue"